Bibliographic record
Abstract
The individual and collective contributions and professional activities of singers had a significant effect on the programming, circulation, and status of operatic works in nineteenth-century France. In the past three decades, scholars engaged in research on performers have made significant strides in revealing, on the one hand, the collaboration of singers and their contributions to the works they performed and, on the other, the structure and dynamics of the operatic marketplace. This chapter explores the various ways in which singers influenced the shape of repertory through their individual choices, the institutional structures under which they worked, and the shifting patterns and places of performance. Indeed, nostalgia for the singers who “created” a role had an important function in the canonization process: the French expression créer un rôle (“create a role”) consciously elevated this activity and imbued it with authorial force. This chapter is paired with Hilary Poriss’s “Redefining the standard: Pauline Viardot and Gluck’s Orphée.”
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.016 |
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".