Czy Magdalena Hofdemel miała romans i nieślubne dziecko z Wolfgangiem Amadeuszem Mozartem oraz inne dygresje na temat niemoralnego prowadzenia się kompozytora
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article focuses on the alleged affair between Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791) and Magdalena Hofdemel (nee Pokorny, 1766 – after 1804), a Czech pianist and violinist, which purportedly resulted in her becoming pregnant and giving birth to an illegitimate child. onsequently, Magdalena’s husband, Franz Hofdemel (circa 1755–1791), a Viennese lawyer and court chancery clerk, out of jealousy, is said to have poisoned Mozart. This issue has long animated Mozart lovers. The community of writers on this topic can be divided into four groups. Some question the affair and thus Mozart’s poisoning. Conversely, others support the idea, with some even presenting intriguing additional information. Meanwhile, a third group argued that neither confirmation nor denial is possible, while some simply report the event without taking a stance. It can be said that the discussion presented in the article between supporters and opponents is often emotional, and evidence is generally not provided. It must be mphasized that there is no evidence for either the alleged affair or Mozart’s poisoning by Hofdemel.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".