À la recherche d’une approche gnoséologique du phénomène musical et de son histoire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis l’apparition de l’enregistrement, la musique s’est enrichie d’une multitude de pratiques éclectiques inspirées par le développement de nos connaissances du phénomène musical. Avec la multiplication des transferts culturels et la reconstitution des pratiques musicales du passé, le mot même « musique », employé au singulier, paraît désormais bien étriqué pour appréhender l’ensemble des manières de penser le phénomène musical à travers le temps et l’espace. Au sein de cette connaissance musicale protéiforme, la pensée esthétique semble avoir perdu ses lettres de noblesse et le relativisme culturel s’est imposé comme solution d’explication. Cet article cherche à reconstruire les fondements épistémologiques d’une manière de penser les phénomènes musicaux en les pensant comme processus multiples mais issus d’une appréhension unique du réel, un « rapport esthétique » avec ses théorisations et ses constructions historiographiques.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".