Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three harpsichords in various states of disrepair were kindly offered to Matthew Bourne by Leeds Conservatoire. He accepted, and a memorandum of understanding was swiftly drawn up. The offer was made under the condition that he might make some music from them, given his penchant for infirm instruments, and their conventional worthlessness to anyone wishing to use them for their intended purpose. There seemed to be an auspiciousness surrounding these harpsichords, the stories they might reveal, and more importantly, the promise of setting them alight in some sort of sacrificial bonfire after their usefulness had expired.<br/><br/>CD B – This is a suite of improvisations played on each individual instrument, with simultaneous electronic processing by one half of the Nightports duo, Mark Slater. Like the pieces on the previous disc, these were recorded in a single sitting, but were duo performances, with clear interplay between instrument and electronics – prompting a variety of different responses from both artists. The recordings were later subjected to brutal cuts and edits made with the same attitude of spontaneous playfulness as the performances, leaving Adam Martin to provide additional effects and processing, using a mixture of digital and analogue outboard equipment.<br/>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.914 | 0.034 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".