Bibliographic record
Abstract
American Synthesis Rudhyar envisaged a cultural shift grounded in a universal conception that had much to learn from both the Western and non-Western approaches, “through a sameness of purpose … as a basis for the re-valuation of all Western ideals, and the building of a new culture, blossoming out of inter-racial co-operation.” He believed that the American ideals of brotherhood and solidarity could potentially transform differences, conflicts, and antagonisms into sociocultural harmony. One of the study objectives he wished to undertake through his project for the 1928 Guggenheim application was “establishing the fundamental relationship existing between Eastern and Western music, and providing a basis for the understanding of the forces moulding even today the future of American music.” An early article published in 1918 in the journal Le Canada dealt with the future of Western civilization in a mélange of despair, anticipation, and aspiration: Aujourd’hui une civilisation humaine agonise. Prenez-en les fantômes et refaites le Futur. C’est de l’union des Celtes et des Slaves—de l’abstraction et de la passion—que naître cet Avenir. Créez-le. L’Europe est trop vieille. Elle vous enverra des prophètes, peut-être des initiateurs, synthèse de … [illegible] Ame dispersée. Elle n’a plus assez d’instinct, assez de “tempérament” pour que d’elle surgisse la foule de Réalisateurs, qui seule peut établir les bases profondes de la civilisation future. (Today a humane civilization is in agony. Take away its phantoms and remake the Future. It is from the union of the Celts and the Slavs—of abstraction and passion— that this Future should arise. Create it. Europe is too old. She will send you prophets, perhaps initiators, synthesis of … [illegible] scattered Soul. She no longer has enough instinct, enough “temperament” in order that from her there should arise the crowd of “Realisators,” which alone may establish the deep foundations of the future civilization.) Speaking of cultural prophets who initiate a reestablishment of a new future on the grounds of what was left and lost, he dreamed of a potent and sound race capable of uniting l’abstraction with la passion .
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.591 | 0.390 |
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".