Partition ou objet d’art ? Les 34 Scores for Piano, Organ, Harpsichord and Celeste de Björk (2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur les 34 Scores for Piano, Organ, Harpsichord and Celeste (2017) de Björk et interroge le rôle de ce recueil de partitions dans la carrière de la chanteuse. Trois caractéristiques du recueil sont mises en évidence. Premièrement, son rôle dans la légitimation de Björk en tant qu’artiste, et non seulement en tant qu’icône de la musique populaire. Deuxièmement, son statut ambigu d’objet fonctionnel (une partition à interpréter) et d’objet d’art (un beau livre à contempler). Troisièmement, le statut des arrangements présentés dans ce recueil par Björk et le compositeur islandais Jónas Sen, qui se situent à égale distance de compositions nouvelles et de simples adaptations à une instrumentation nouvelle. Ces trois caractéristiques convergent et mettent en évidence la volonté de Björk de réaliser un crossover entre musiques populaires amplifiées et musique classique. Les 34 Scores permettent ainsi de mieux comprendre la place singulière qu’occupe l’artiste islandaise dans l’histoire de la musique des deux premières décennies du xxie siècle.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".