Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Part biography, part survey, Pierre Boulez: The Formative Years (1925–1962) explores the creative process of a mercurial musician among an array of interrelated contexts, sketches, and correspondence. As a revisionist history, The Formative Years highlights Boulez’s sensitivity to the negative reception of his works. Despite his reputation as an autodidact, Boulez was reliant on a series of teachers, peers, and mentors to gauge the success of his musical ideas, from his first exploits on the piano through his drafting of Pli selon pli in the early 1960s. He used this feedback to practice continual self-reform. Across his writings and compositions, Boulez revisited old material to reconfigure elements from his past. Over time, his cumulative efforts became the palimpsests of a fragmented self in conflict with his world. A book that both celebrates and critiques its subject, The Formative Years challenges the idea that Boulez was a modernist. As he struggled to first find a voice and later control it, he frequently turned to models such as René Char, Anton Webern, and Stephane Mallarmé. But as his music matured, he found new expressive possibilities in the reiterative techniques of poststructuralism. His most experimental sketches feature recomposed transcriptions of previous works as a means for expanding the expressive boundaries of serialism. The journey evidenced by his sketches forces a reconsideration of serialism’s influence among a host of other postmodern genres.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.131 | 0.037 |
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".