Bibliographic record
Abstract
A complex dynamic of continuity and change for Haydn and Mozart individually and together characterizes 120 years of reception. Mozart gained a reputational upper hand over Haydn in the first decade of the nineteenth century, remaining a step ahead thereafter (at least in terms of volume of scholarship); the Haydn–Mozart–Beethoven progression narrative began as one among several competing representations of the Viennese triumvirate, assumed hermeneutic prominence mid-century, and then subsided; popularly orientated biographies, biographical sketches, and fiction flourished from the early 1800s onwards, bearing especially ripe fruit in the second half of the nineteenth century; big scholarly strides were made for Haydn from the late 1860s, and Mozart in isolated works from the second quarter of the century, for three decades from the mid-1850s onwards and then from 1906; major anniversaries were celebrated to differing extents (Haydn) and in similar and different ways (Mozart), growing out of existing reception-related activities in each case rather than jolting reception to a new level; and both composers came alive for readers, listeners, performers, music lovers, and scholars alike through the publication of letters, other primary-source materials, and ‘new’ works inter alia in complete editions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.506 | 0.204 |
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".