The Idea & Value of "Book"- A Comparative Review of Sound in Motion - A Performer's Guide to Greater Musical Expression by David McGill & Deepening Musical Performance through Movement - The Theory and Practice of Embodied Interpretation by Alexandra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I would like to begin with a short, personal story. As a music major, I spotted a German book called Das Meisterwerk in der Musik, the enticing title of which translates as "The Musical Masterpiece." Intrigued, I showed this library book to my tutor, who advised me to leave it alone. "Schenker is toxic" were his precise words. To a youngster of the post 1968 era, a forbidden idea just made it all the more alluring, and so I discovered what few of my generation seemed to be being taught. Admittedly, piano studies involved a venerable lineage through Heinrich Neuhaus of Moscow, who had taught many of the great teachers teaching my generation, back through such as Liszt and Czerny, all the way to Ludwig van Beethoven himself, who seemed to have more or less invented everything that mattered in piano virtuosity. Into the conceptual void strode Dr. Schenker, opining in his evocative Gothic script about how music fits together, so that you could think about it and know what it was you were thinking about. I sensed, at that moment, that I had been allowed at last to read, and not only hear, some of the secret knowledge of classical music that otherwise could be garnered only somehow intuitively, and for me only half-understood, in the studio.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".