Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This introduction presents a critical overview of the phenomenology of music, examining its origins, history, limits, and future possibilities. Since Plato, Western discourse about music has articulated a conflict between music’s mathematical, objective properties and its effects on embodied, situated human subjects. Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, approached similar philosophical problems via a theory of intentionality. If consciousness is always intentional (i.e., directed toward things), then there is an essential correlation between the subject and the world. Since 1900, phenomenological analysis of musical problems has taken several forms: (1) from around 1910 to 1940, a quest to define the very object of musical phenomenology in opposition to the contemporaneous trend toward a “naturalistic” music aesthetics; (2) from around 1940 to 1970, greater concern with aesthetic production (including both performance and modernist poetics); (3) from around 1970 to around 2000, the prioritization of musical “experience” as a counterweight to music-theoretical abstractions; and (4) from 2000 to the present, a growing acknowledgment of embodiment, technology, and the interaction of the two. Because musical form is generated through time, because we make and feel music with our bodies and instruments, because music communicates shared meaning with others, and because music is performed in diverse social contexts, a phenomenology of music must work with key themes of phenomenology itself—time-consciousness, embodiment, intersubjectivity, and the lifeworld.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.408 | 0.224 |
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".