MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238632378 · doi:10.4000/books.pum.204

Profession musicologue

2007· book· fr· W4238632378 on OpenAlex
Jean-Jacques Nattiez

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePresses de l’Université de Montréal eBooks · 2007
Typebook
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLiterature, Musicology, and Cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtArt historyHumanitiesVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La musique, c’est bien connu, est avant tout source d’émotion et de plaisir. Elle accompagne notre vie quotidienne, dont elle constitue le paysage sonore sans même que nous nous en rendions compte. Alors, pourquoi y a-t-il des musicologues, c’est-à-dire des chercheurs qui prétendent aborder la musique d’un point de vue scientifique ? Quelles questions se posent-ils ? Quels problèmes cherchent-ils à résoudre ? Comment travaillent-ils et où ? Le discours sur la musique ne serait-il pas quelque peu parasitaire ? Que peut-il apporter aux mélomanes et aux amoureux de la musique ? Telles sont quelques-unes des questions que le grand public se pose souvent au sujet de la profession de musicologue, et auxquelles Jean-Jacques Nattiez tentera de répondre en empruntant des exemples concrets à ses propres champs de recherche : la musique de Wagner et celle… des Inuit.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it