Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the summer of 2008, over two days, my wife and I hiked the Maligne Range (Skyline) trail, situated in the Canadian Rockies near Jasper, Alberta. The 45-km trail begins in a pine forest at Maligne Lake but soon rises above the tree line. From there it winds its way across two successively higher mountain passes. In between lies a sprawling meadow speckled with colourful flowers and criss-crossed by glacial creeks. At the halfway point, the trail switchbacks steeply to the very top of the range, a vantage point that affords spectacular views in all directions. But a storm set in just as we reached the peak. Unwilling to serve as lightning rods, we broke out into a run, finding shelter only as the trail drops off quickly on the other side of the range. The breathtaking views, ruggedness and diversity of terrain, whistling marmots and sense of isolation all left a strong impression on me. I was especially delighted to realize that the very topographical contour of the trail provides a basic plan for a large-scale sonata-form structure, one that builds up in waves of tension, culminating in a fierce storm at the top: the development. In a similar vein, after the stormy material subsides (as in Beethoven’s Sixth), the descent, recalling the ascent, but now abridged and in reverse order, serves as varied recapitulation. The result is a one-movement symphony in the tradition of Sibelius’s Seventh and Barber’s First. Essentially tonal, the harmonic language is enriched with polytonal accents, modal alterations, complex chords and the colouristic usage of collections and twelve-tone techniques. Polymetre, multi-stranded canons, metric modulation and controlled aleatoric techniques enliven the rhythmic plane. The work’s structure is organic, developed out of limited yet contrasting thematic material, with all programmatic elements assuming abstract structural roles. The symphony’s bright orchestration and rhythmic vitality is indebted to composers of the modern Russian school; its emotional sweep and extremes, to Shostakovich; the scoring and harmonic content of certain dissonant chords, to Varèse; and its sense of drama and breadth, to Beethoven and Sibelius.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.293 | 0.089 |
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".