Konstantin Zenkin: "The Russian mentality is such that authority is a key position for him."
Bibliographic record
Abstract
В 2013 году в Санкт-Петербурге и в 2015 году в Москве состоялись I и II международные конгрессы Общества теории музыки. В работе этих представительных научных собраний приняли участие музыковеды из разных городов России, а также зарубежные специалисты (из Австралии, Австрии, Беларуси, Болгарии, Бразилии, Германии, Дании, Италии, Казахстана, Канады, Польши, США, Туркмении, Франции, Швейцарии). В сентябре 2017 года в Московской консерватории состоится III Международный конгресс музыкально-теоретического сообщества, в преддверии которого мы предлагаем вниманию читателей беседу с одним из организаторов и постоянных участников форума — проректором по научной работе Московской государственной консерватории имени П. И. Чайковского, доктором искусствоведения, профессором Константином Зенкиным. Вопросы задает доктор искусствоведения, профессор Казанской государственной консерватории имени Н. Г. Жиганова Вадим Дулат-Алеев. In 2013 in St. Petersburg and in 2015 in Moscow the I and II International Congresses of the Society for Theory of Music were held. Musicologists from different cities of Russia, as well as foreign experts (from Australia, Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Brazil, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Kazakhstan, Canada, Poland, USA, Turkmenistan, France, Switzerland) took part in these representative scientific meetings. In September 2017, the Moscow Conservatory will host the III International Congress of the musical-theoretical community, on the eve of which we offer our readers a conversation with one of the organizers and permanent participants of the forum, Deputy Rector for Research of the Tchaikovsky Moscow State Conservatory, Doctor of Fine Arts, Professor Konstantin Zenkin. Questions are asked by Vadim Dulat-Aleev, Doctor of Fine Arts, Professor of the Zhiganov Kazan State Conservatory.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".