MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408846818 · doi:10.7202/1116732ar

Du <i>loggione</i> aux mèmes. Les <i>fans </i>d’opéra à l’ère numérique à Milan et à New York

2024· article· fr· W4408846818 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicolò Palazzetti

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue musicale OICRM · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au carrefour de la sociologie culturelle, de la musicologie et des études sur les fans, cet article étudie les communautés de fans d’opéra à l’ère numérique. Réalisée entre 2019 et 2023, cette recherche utilise une méthodologie qualitative et comparative combinant l’ethnographie numérique avec l’observation participante sur place dans les maisons d’opéra, notamment à la Scala de Milan et au Metropolitan Opera de New York. Cartographier le fandom de l’opéra signifie examiner non seulement comment les amateurs ont influencé les stratégies des institutions lyriques, mais aussi comment ils ont préservé le patrimoine social et spatial du « paradis » (loggione en italien). Dans cette étude, je me focalise en particulier sur l’histoire culturelle récente de la passion pour l’opéra, notamment après la diffusion du World Wide Web. Je m’appuie sur l’hypothèse que les amateurs d’opéra peuvent être typiquement technophiles et que les formes de nostalgie culturelle sont des sous-produits constitutifs de l’essor des nouvelles technologies de partage et de diffusion de la culture. En ce sens, cet article interdisciplinaire veut contribuer tant à l’avancement des études sociologiques sur l’opéra qu’aux études sur les fans, notamment en relation aux arts du spectacle.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue musicale OICRMSame topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207