Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For more than twenty years, the Russian opera diva Anna Netrebko was leading an iconic transnational life, working in most prestigious theaters all over the world and living between her three luxurious homes in St Petersburg, Vienna and New York. In all her social media, she was advertising this lifestyle as highly enjoyable and enriching. She was stressing how much at home she was feeling both in the West and in Russia, advocating a cultural mix of Russian and European dressing styles and life habits (Mattison, 2005; LIFE, 2022). She became an embodiment of the mass media fairytale about a transnationally (and even supra-nationally) integrated cosmopolitan with the Cinderella roots, who lives as if above the state while also in every state of her professional membership (Smirnova, 2022). And when the global world started to break apart in the milieu of the post-2022 geopolitics, Netrebko firmly declared that she would stay above the politics, still hoping to be integrated in every national culture as she always used to be (Netrebko, 2022). To her great surprise, this cosmopolitan membership was suddenly interrupted by the political loyalty requirement at both ends. And Netrebko found herself sidelined first in the global opera industry because of her political neutrality, and then in Russian culture because of her attempt to restore the disrupted European career (KP.RU, 2023). This example shows how easily super giant stars can be thrown down from the sky, and leads us to look into a rather tragic story of their integration. Netrebko’s de-idolization was perceived by my informants as ‘the end of something’—not exactly the end of their careers but the end of something that had been keeping their work and lives together: they were ‘perplexed and disoriented by the loss of something precious that was running away’ from them. They clearly saw their ‘own lives getting out of control’ until they started to see that this ‘pivotal something’ was actually their integration.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".