De l’analogique au numérique. Pratiques de création et discours sur l’authenticité dans les <i>home studios </i>techno
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine, à partir d’une ethnographie menée dans des home studios d’artistes techno en France, les modalités d’articulation entre instruments numériques et analogiques dans les pratiques de création musicale. L’étude, qui s’appuie sur des entretiens approfondis et des observations in situ auprès de cinq artistes, révèle que ces pratiques, plutôt que de manifester une opposition binaire entre technologies analogiques et numériques, relèvent d’une approche pragmatique adaptée aux contraintes techniques et économiques. L’analyse des discours sur l’authenticité, récurrents dans les entretiens, démontre que ces derniers traduisent moins des préoccupations relatives à la qualité sonore que des questionnements sur la légitimité artistique d’une nouvelle génération de producteurs, dans un genre musical historiquement associé à l’utilisation d’instruments analogiques.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".