Bibliographic record
Abstract
Debussy Studies 2 follows on from the first volume under that title a little over a quarter of a century later (1997) and enters a field of extraordinarily rich recent research activity devoted to Claude Debussy. The co-edited OUP collection Rethinking Debussy (2011) 1 appeared just before several international conferences for Debussy’s birth sesquicentenary in 2012. Indeed, the commemoration of Debussy in 2012 and then in 2018, to mark the centenary of his death, gave rise to a number of events in France, Belgium, Canada and the UK, providing multiple opportunities to reflect on Debussy over the century, and to stimulate new research by well-established scholars and by a whole new generation of researchers. Jann Pasler carried out the clearest reflective survey of the state of Debussy research in 2012 in an article published in Notes entitled ‘Debussy the Man, his Music and his Legacy: an overview of current research’. 2 She used it as an opportunity to take stock on Debussy scholarship and how it had changed since the composer’s centenary in 1962, focusing in particular on the last ten years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.020 |
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".