Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thesis (orchestral composition) Duration: 9 minutes Instrumentation: 2 flutes (2nd doubling piccolo), 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons, 4 horns, 2 trumpets, 3 trombones, tuba, timpani, 2 percussion, harp, strings ABSTRACT The concept of this single-movement, 9-minute, tone poem is essentially the dichotomy of ‘nature’ and ‘humankind’, placed in the context of the age when the very first humans set foot on an untouched Canadian landscape, more than 12,000 years ago. The music does not seek to be programmatic, culturally or historically-specific in any way. Nor is the dichotomy of nature and humankind presented as an adversarial one. Rather, the music aims to explore the various emotions that any human being might feel upon first discovering a new landscape, and eventually when having to mesh with this landscape. These might well include feelings of mystery, awe, trepidation, and excitement, to name a few. There are three main sections to this piece. The first (until b.41) primarily aims to evoke an untouched natural, wintery landscape. The proto-melody, that begins at b.41 and develops quickly, signals the first motivations of humankind. The 4-chord chorale at b.141 heralds the final section, which signals the first dawn of spring, and a general sense of optimism. There are a select few deliberate examples of tone-painting: bars 29-32 depict a tree branch collapsing under the weight of accumulating snow, and bars 102-121 are inspired by birds in flight. At the very end, there remains the dichotomy of nature’s constancy and humankind’s footprint. This particular piece marks a stark departure from my usual compositional style, which is typically explicit in its explorations of the boundaries between cultures, and between composition and improvisation. The purpose of this thesis has been to set aside my usual preoccupations with rhythm and melody to explore instead a more textural world of shifting colours and emotions, where rhythmic material is organic as opposed to constructed, and melodic material is - at most - fragmented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.003 |
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".