MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366077128 · doi:10.56698/filigrane.1312

L’art des drones et des nappes synthétiques (synth pads) 

2022· article· fr· W4366077128 on OpenAlexaff
Jérôme Rossi

Bibliographic record

VenueFiligrane · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemonArtHumanitiesLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Troisième long-métrage du binôme formé par le Danois Nicolas Winding Refn et Cliff Martinez après Drive et Only God Forgives, The Neon Demon explore le monde impitoyable de la mode à Los Angeles à travers le parcours de Jesse (Elle Fanning), une jeune femme à la beauté pure et irrésistible. Pour ce film qui marque selon le compositeur l’« aboutissement d’une collaboration », Cliff Martinez continue de proposer des partitions intégralement électroniques, entre beat techno et trance new age, démontrant un art consommé dans le maniement d’un matériau suscitant généralement peu d’intérêt, les synth pads ou « nappes synthétiques ».En l’absence quasi totale de thèmes mélodiques, la narrativité musicale se fonde sur des motifs sonores et des thèmes harmoniques élaborés à partir de drones et de nappes synthétiques. En pensant sa musique dès sa conception pour s’intégrer au soundscape global du film – « motif du diamant » possédant une version bruitiste et une version musicale, discrétion des points d’entrée musicaux – voire en la concevant elle-même comme un soundscape – renforcement de la composante bruitiste, intégration de drones bruitistes et de bruits dans la composition –, Cliff Martinez s’affirme comme un maître de la « soundscape score ».

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.004

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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.079 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFiligraneSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207