Music information visualization and classical composers discovery: an application of network graphs, multidimensional scaling, and support vector machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article illustrates different information visualization techniques applied to a database of classical composers and visualizes both the macrocosm of the Common Practice Period and the microcosms of twentieth century classical music. It uses data on personal (composer-to-composer) musical influences to generate and analyze network graphs. Data on style influences and composers ‘ecological’ data are then combined to composer-to-composer musical influences to build a similarity/distance matrix, and a multidimensional scaling analysis is used to locate the relative position of composers on a map while preserving the pairwise distances. Finally, a support-vector machines algorithm is used to generate classification maps. This article falls into the realm of an experiment in music education, not musicology. The ultimate objective is to explore parts of the classical music heritage and stimulate interest in discovering composers. In an age offering either inculcation through lists of prescribed composers and compositions to explore, or music recommendation algorithms that automatically propose works to listen to next, the analysis illustrates an alternative path that might promote the active rather than passive discovery of composers and their music in a less restrictive way than inculcation through prescription.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".