Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Silence has frequently been upheld as a terminus, be it the climax of artistic nullity or the void created by the inevitable cultural withdrawal of modern art. The idea of silence as a point of departure has rarely been proposed, yet modernist music shows that silence has played such a role. Silence is a state, a sonic or conceptual ideal to which a work aspires. Silence is one such ideal, as are purity, complexity, and the fragmentary. Modernist, especially late modernist, composers have written works that aim to evoke states through musical languages that emulate distinct qualities of those conditions. Webern, Nono, and Sciarrino are three composers who have turned to silence. Instead of parsing out sections of silence (as Cage did), they create musical settings that conjure aspects of quiet. All three situate their music in a particular scene, the border between sound and silence. Informed by stillness, fragmentation, and fragility, it is a space that appears often in modernist arts, particularly the writings of Beckett. Far from being a narrow and doomed location, it is a limitless realm, a new sonic territory. The borderland, like many states, has unique potential for expression. Silence has long been used expressively, as experienced in tense pauses, but Webern, Nono, and Sciarrino use silence to comment on expression as an act. They ask questions about the act: How does it start? How is an utterance conveyed? What happens to it? Silence provides a revealing backdrop against which to scrutinize expression. This commentary is part of an ongoing modernist interrogation of expression. The music of Webern, Nono, and Sciarrino adds to the interrogation, doing so through a modernist point of fascination with silence.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.021 |
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".