MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321463557 · doi:10.7202/1096477ar

Applying a Mad Studies Framework to Opera: Poulenc’s Dialogues des Carmélites

2023· article· en· W4321463557 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Colette Simonot-Maiello

Bibliographic record

VenueIntersections Canadian Journal of Music · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Literary Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperaMetaphorHistoryLiteratureArtVisual artsLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple readings of madness are examined in Poulenc’s opera Dialogues des Carmélites (1957) through the framework of mad studies. Several layers of madness can be found in this work: individual lived experiences of madness, the history of mental illness in France during and after the French Revolution, and the cultural metaphor of hysteria as social degeneration, as articulated by Micale. Close readings of two scenes with a discussion of their musical features are included: the first prioress’s death (act 1, scene 4) and the final scene at the guillotine (act 3, scene 4).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.146 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntersections Canadian Journal of MusicSame topicHistorical and Literary AnalysesFrench-language works237,207