Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract GARVIE: Mr Britten, we’ve seen you rushing from studio to studio to conduct in Vancouver these last few days, and you seem to spend a great deal of time performing with Peter Pears around the world, conducting your own works, recording them, and yet you seem to write more than most contemporary composers.1 How do you arrange your time to compose? BRITTEN: I try to keep a certain period of each year clear to write, but you know I don’t write very much; I mean compared with Schubert or Mozart or the great ones I write awfully little. PEARS: But here you are, 48, and you’ve reached Op. 62 or something; Mozart had reached Kochel 600 or something and he had been dead for fifteen years hadn’t he? BRITTEN: Yes I know. Don’t make me feel smaller than I feel already. GARVIE: Well I think it’s true though that the modern composers do write more slowly or write less. Is this something to do with the climate of the time? Is it the actual business of writing out is now much more arduous? BRITTEN: That I think is quite true. I think today, I mean to write a symphony means an orchestra very much bigger than ever Mozart or Schubert contemplated. I mean I think someone once said that there are more notes in one Wagner opera than there are words in the whole of Shakespeare; I mean whether that’s true I simply don’t know, I’ve never counted, but I think that is an indication of the complication of modern music. But I think there is another side to the question which I deplore and that is that I think so many modern composers take themselves too seriously. They will write great works all the time. I think greatness happens accidentally-that sometimes one can write a little tiny piece for children or for brass band or something like that, and it may quite easily turn out to be much more important for posterity-if one can worry about posterity-than anyone’s symphonies in B flat minor. I think Schoenberg himself said that you can’t save the world with every Adagio.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.007 |
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".