The Oxford Handbook of the Operatic Canon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This collection examines the phenomenon of the operatic canon: its formation, history, current ontology and practical influence, and future. It does so by taking an international and interdisciplinary view: the workshops from which it was derived included the participation of critics, producers, artistic directors, stage directors, opera company CEOs, and even economists, from the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Italy, Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Canada. The volume is structured as a series of dialogues: each subtopic is addressed by two essays, introduced jointly by the authors, and followed by a jointly compiled list of further reading. These paired essays complement each other in different ways, for example by treating the same geographical location in different periods, by providing different national or regional perspectives on the same period, or by thinking through similar conceptual issues in contrasting milieus. Part I consists of a selection of surveys of operatic production and consumption contexts in France, Italy, Germany, England, Russia, and the Americas, arranged in rough order from the late seventeenth century to the late nineteenth century. Part II is a (necessarily) limited sample of subjects that illuminate the operatic canon from different—sometimes intentionally oblique—angles, ranging from the influence of singers to the contiguous genres of operetta and musical theater, and the effects of recording and broadcast over almost 150 years. The volume concludes with two essays written by prominent figures from the opera industry who give their sense of the operatic canon’s evolution and prospects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.022 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".