MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Where’s Waldo? (JVC 2002)

2006· book-chapter· en· W4388354293 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gary Giddins

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJazzNothingArt historyHistoryArtPerformance artTicketMedia studiesSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A brief July 9 press release about the flagship event that ran from June 16 to June 29 begins with an announcement from George Wein (“CEO of Festival Productions, Inc.”): “The 2002 JVC Jazz Festival–New York was the most successful JVC festival ever held in New York.” It was also the least jazz-like. JVC, whether good or ill or, per usual, in between, does not always reflect what is actually going on in the jazz world. This year it did—not musically, but culturally and economically as concerns what remains of jazz central in these United States. Fading away, like Uncle Tom in an episode excised from Duke Ellington’s Jump for Joy, Uncle Jazz lies on his deathbed while producers and CEO’s frantically administer adrenalin to keep him alive. It isn’t necessarily his music they hope to preserve, but his name, a valuable brand on seven continents. Never in my experience has JVC presented so little jazz, or so few thematic and imaginative concerts. Even re-creations, with which we are admittedly surfeited, vanished from the bill. There was nothing novel, original, or newsworthy. A cursory look at the events scheduled for The Hague, Montreal, and other international jazz sites reveals the singularity of New York’s drought. Of eight concerts presented at Carnegie Hall, which according to a press release had a 90 percent ticket sale (that’s the source of the “most successful” claim), only half were undeniably jazz. Of the others, Joao Gilberto and Eddie Palmieri remain tangential, though they have now become deservedly admired JVC traditions; make the audience beg and beg and beg for the encores? After one belated bow, DeJohnette walked to the drums only to learn that there had not yet been enough begging and then had to walk off stage; after the next bow, Peacock made the same mistake. OK, it’s a small price. Jarrett and company, at least, know what they’re doing. I’m not sure about JVC. If this year’s financial success breeds another year with as little resourcefulness, as little jazz, there won’t be much point in covering it. We will already have heard almost all of it worth hearing—year round, in the clubs.

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2430.080

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.149 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMusic History and CultureFrench-language works237,207