Bibliographic record
Abstract
Well known for his extravagant appearance, Louis Jullien (1812-1860), a prominent conductor in England, programmed concerts that were entertaining and accessible to the public. During the nineteenth century, conductors began to take responsibility for the artistic and musical direction of their concerts. Jullien’s concerts included dance, choral, and classical music to appeal to a variety of tastes. His theatricality on the podium and use of a baton captivated his audiences, while his distinctive conducting personality contributed to the visual appeal of the concert experience. Audience members and musical reviewers alike were attracted to the spectacular display at Jullien’s concerts. Through the examination of articles in the Musical World, the most important London-based music periodical published in Jullien’s time, and Romantic orchestral scholarship, this research investigates Louis Jullien’s role as a conducting figure. While Adam Carse has described the biographical accounts of Jullien’s life and Holly Mathieson has examined the artistic representations of Jullien and has interpreted his conducting as militaristic and magical, scholars have not yet examined the sublime in the reception of Jullien’s performance. Jullien’s virtuosic self presentation and performance behaviour inspired responses that drew upon the language of the sublime and influenced how he was received as a visionary figure. His status as a visionary was further developed by his innovations as a conductor.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.041 |
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".