Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The history of opera in this country is curious and complicated; it is also very characteristically English in its mixture of amateurish enthusiasm, professional indifference, occasional bright ideas without the least sense of planning for the future, commercial routine and-from the general public-complete ignorance and bewilderment. For Britten himself, this triumph meant something more than the immediacy of being an internationally recognised composer. It meant for him that he was now willing in himself, and, indeed, determined to be, within the 20th century, a professional opera composer. While touring Canada with the English Opera Group in I 957, Britten was asked by a music critic to describe the difference between The Rape of Lucretia and The Turn of the Screw. ‘The title is different, and the story ’, replied Britten. ‘ Oh yes, of course, but the music, Mr. Britten-what would you say was the difference between the music of “The Rape of Lucretia “ and “The Turn of the Screw “? ‘ ‘The notes are the same, but they are in a different order. ’ The comparison between the two works is a profitable one, although not in the sense intended by the music critic, nor in Britten ‘s precise if dismissive reply. The Rape of Lucretia, Britten ‘s first opera after Peter Grimes, owed its presentation at Glyndebourne in 1946 to private patronage. Britain then was just beginning to explore the institutionalization of national culture through its new Arts Council.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".