Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notions of subjectivity and individuality pervade the discourse around jazz and non-idiomatic improvisation. While subjectivity plays an important role musical improvisation, the tendency to focus on the subjectivity of the player(s) – analysing their particular improvisatory approach(es) – has muddied the broader structure at issue: where the musical event goes beyond the players and leads them to unforeseen musical outcomes. In this paper I reassess the role of subjectivity in improvised music by interpreting it through a hermeneutic lens. I connect musical improvisation with three ideas characteristic of hermeneutics: prejudice/fore-understanding, conversation, and in-between. In each case I will describe how these topics describe improvisation and suggest means of arriving at a more nuanced understanding of the role of subjectivity in improvised musical performance.
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 | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.107 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".