Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the course of the introductory commentary on hypermeter in A 
 Generative Theory of Tonal Music (GTTM), Lerdahl and Jackendoff discuss 
 the opening measures of Mozart’s Symphony No. 40 in G Minor, a hypermetrically ambiguous 
 passage in which “the performer’s choice . . . can tip the balance one way or the 
 other for the listener.” Through reflections on concepts from more recent psychological 
 inquiry into performance, and on the interpretations of the passage that are projected 
 in four well-known recordings of the Symphony, I will develop a set of theoretical 
 principles that describe the “balance-tipping” effects of performance-specific elements 
 on hypermetric structures inferred by the listener. This special case will lead 
 to a more general reconsideration of the place of performance in the design of the 
 Lerdahl-Jackendoff theory. The article proceeds in five parts: (1) an introduction 
 to the main theoretical concepts to be discussed, including a brief consideration 
 of current debates with which the study intersects; (2) a critical discussion of 
 the relationship between hypermeter and performance that is proposed in GTTM ; 
 (3) an attempt at extending the theory of accent types to include a special class 
 of phenomenal accents that is under the performer’s control; (4) a close reading 
 of four recordings, facilitated by quantitative performance analyses, and an attempt 
 at explaining their hypermetric patterns as transformations of perfectly regular 
 underlying structures; and (5) concluding remarks of a more general nature on the 
 relationship between structure and performance in GTTM .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".