Tunes from a sultans's diary: Musical performances and musicians in the Rüznames of Mahmud I (R. 1730-1754)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the musical elements in the rûznâmes (the records of the sultan’s daily activities) of Mahmud I (r. 1730-1754) who occupied the Ottoman throne for nearly a quarter of a century. The examination foregrounds the question of whether these records provide data on and can be useful in writing the history of Ottoman music. Based on the references to music in these sources, this study contributes to our understanding of Istanbul’s musical landscape in the first half of the 18th century. Furthermore, it describes the characteristics of this music and the musical practices of this certain period, along with Ottoman music more generally. The first chapter analyzes musicians’ profiles in and around the Ottoman court according to their socio-cultural and occupational backgrounds; officers, artisans, mosque singers, Sufis, and non-Muslims. The following chapter focuses on the music in the rûznâmes. It details of the genres of music and instruments that the sultan listened to, illuminates Mahmud I’s musical tastes, and the musical genres and the instruments that were popular in the first half of the 18th century. Finally, the third chapter explores the locations where the musical performances for the sultan took place. It also tries to shed light on Mahmud I’s Mevlevî inclinations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".