Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It was her love of music—especially Stravinsky’s music—that drew them together. This book tells the story of the ever-changing nature of Boulanger and Stravinsky’s relationship from Boulanger’s perspective, tracing their interactions from 1931 to 1971. Throughout, it asks how Boulanger’s professional activity during the turbulent twentieth century intersected with her efforts on behalf of Stravinsky and how this facilitated her own influential conversations with the composer about his works while also drawing her into close contact with his family. This narrative draws upon the work of Pierre Bourdieu and his notion of cultural capital as a means of interrogating how Boulanger played a foundational role in defining, defending, and consecrating Stravinsky’s canonical identity. Linking the metaphor of cultural capital with the work of feminist musicologists, this text calls for a reevaluation of the influence of women on cultural production during the twentieth century, particularly the power of those imbedded within scholarly institutions to validate individuals after 1920. Thus, this book is both a story of one woman’s vibrant friendship with Igor Stravinsky and a case study in how gendered polemics informed professional negotiations of the artistic-political fields of the twentieth century. Ultimately, these materials are brought together to address these questions: How did Boulanger teach both Igor and Soulima Stravinsky; how did she teach Stravinsky’s music, and how, in doing this, did she influence the course of modernism?
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".