MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409350193 · doi:10.35699/2317-6377.2005.55545

O desconforto da musicologia

2005· article· en· W4409350193 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Jacques Nattiez, Luis Paulo Sampaio

Bibliographic record

VenuePer Musi · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBrazilian cultural history and politics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Musicology like the other Humanities is going through a difficult growth crisis which, according to the author of this text, is motivated by the ambiguous relationship it maintains with its subject of study: Music. Such ambiguity is due to three basic reasons which are described and analyzed in this article: 1) Being a language about Music, some people consider Musicology a parasitical discourse; 2) the unfolding of this discipline in a great number of specialized fields; 3) as the concept of art itself is one of its main subjects of study, many problems arise when Musicology deals with issues on authenticity and on the idea of the Beautiful in Music

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.029
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePer MusiSame topicBrazilian cultural history and politicsFrench-language works237,207