Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wandering—musical, physical, and psychological—is a vital feature of my creative process as a contemporary composer: it is the common thread which ties my recent compositions together.In writing North, I traveled by train from Winnipeg to Churchill, Manitoba, the northernmost extent of rail which originates from the south in the Canada. I sought to understand how the experience of ‘going North’, and the feeling of arriving there, could be translated into sound. I was particularly fascinated by the psychophysical sensation of ‘coldness’.In writing Yet Somehow Comes Emptiness, I traveled to the Painted Desert in Arizona, where I spent several days hiking and composing in the wilderness. I was deeply inspired by the badlands, especially the counterpoint between the topography and the diverse pigments of layered clay. In my composition, I represented this counterpoint within a virtual multidimensional space, in which each dimension corresponded to a particular parameter of music.In writing Oriemur, we will rise, my search for wandering turned inward. Building on my research on memory and medieval monastic rhetoric, I began to create imaginary architectural spaces through which I could wander. In Oriemur this architectural space became increasingly abstract, allowing the associations and metaphors to drift in and out of focus. As a result, the theme of my most recent work has transcended the earthly wandering of physical landscapes to the wandering within the spiritual, yet abstract, dimensions of human consciousness.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.018 |
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".