MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392836000 · doi:10.30535/mto.10.2.2

Authenticity, Appropriation, Signification

2004· article· en· W4392836000 on OpenAlexaff
Lori Burns, Alyssa Woods

Bibliographic record

VenueMusic Theory Online · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppropriationNarrativeIntertextualityMusicalStyle (visual arts)Theme (computing)LiteratureArtLyricsStorytellingAestheticsLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies alternative artist Tori Amos’s cover versions of two original performances by Billie Holiday and Eminem. The narrative perspectives and musical structures of the original songs offer great potential to explore questions of authenticity, appropriation, and intertextuality, and Amos’s distinctive revisions of the songs encourage reflection on her Signifyin(g) practices. The song “Strange Fruit” marked a shift in Billie Holiday’s musical style and social consciousness. Her recording (1939) of this emotionally powerful song about the lynching of a black man is upheld as the benchmark (“authentic”) version of that song. Over five decades later (1994), Tori Amos expresses a powerful commitment to the style and social message of Holiday’s original, yet her musical presentation is not merely historical tribute; rather, Amos Signifies on the older text to offer a contemporary statement on race and violence. Eminem’s song, “‘97 Bonnie and Clyde” (1999) exposes the problematic theme of violence against women. In her version (2001), Tori Amos appropriates Eminem’s lyrics, but casts a new perspective over the narrative by assuming the voice of the murdered woman. This paper analyzes the originals and covers using an interpretive framework that focuses on the voice as the site and vehicle of an artist’s Signifyin(g) expression.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.039
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMusic Theory OnlineSame topicMusic History and CultureFrench-language works237,207