Crisis? what crisis? : Anglophone musicmaking in Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship of musicmaking to the city is a complicated one as it often takes very specific and complex spatial and social forms. The example of Montreal can be used to illustrate some of the ways in which these forms manifest themselves. By considering the way in which two particular cultural spaces, namely scene and bohemia, emerge in relation to musical activity, this project analyzes the nature of musicmaking and its role in shaping a unique experience of the city. It frames a case study of Montreal musicmaking to explore the ways in which scenes and bohemias are connected to city life. It also considers the way in which a particular image of the city manifests itself through musicmaking. The collective representation of Montreal as a bohemia by anglophone musicmakers works with and through a number of social divisions and cultural distinctions. It is argued that the nature of place-images and mythology in musicmaking is such that they have a profound effect on the sociomusical experience of the city. Montreal is privileged by many anglophone musicmakers as an ideal city in which to be culturally active, as the city's weak economic state is perceived to foster the conditions best suited to a flourishing bohemia. This project examines the relationship of musicmakers to Montreal, using a variety of research methods and theories. Cognitive mapping, diaristic accounts and interviews are utilized to better apprehend how a chosen image of Montreal affects musical practice. The socioeconomic history of Montreal in the latter half of the twentieth century is used to frame an analysis of the emergence of an independent music scene in the city. By exploring a number of relevant factors, this project documents the ways in which musicmaking is structured in relation to the economic, political and social dimensions of Montreal.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".