Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the discipline of music theory has devoted a lot of attention to the role of social and political issues in music-theoretical discourse.Indeed, if there remains "anyone naive enough still to think music theory and analysis . . .are insulated from any social, political, or institutional ideologies" (Christensen 2024, 100), the steady stream of scholarship in response to and/or bolstered by the U.S.'s 2020 racial reckoning (or awakening) attests to the "interconnectedness between music theory and worldview," as Daniel Goldberg ([0.3]) writes.Much of this socially, culturally, and politically informed work, including my own, has focused on how the discipline of music theory has historically aligned itself with a worldview that oppresses people marginalized by race, gender, sexuality, class, disability, and other identity markers (Conlee and Koike 2021a, 2021b; Momii 2021; Boyd 2023; Ewell 2023; Lett 2023; Yust 2024); and/or has shown the potential for music theory to challenge dominant worldviews and the oppressive hierarchies therein (Hannaford 2021;Lumsden 2022;Stover 2022;Yu Wang, 2023).As valuable and path-breaking as this work has been, the vast majority of this work only captures the state of music theory as practiced in the U.S. and Canada, or, in other words, the primary purview of the Society for Music Theory.As a result, much of the sociopolitical discourse we as a discipline have been attending to through our music-theoretical practice has been limited to the political situations we are most familiar with and invested in.Yet, as we know, these global politics extend far beyond what directly impacts us in English-speaking North America, and have influenced, and continue to influence, musical and music-theoretical practices.
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 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.265 | 0.086 |
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".