Bibliographic record
Abstract
Submitted thesis is a result of searching for relationships between music and space, between musical parameters and acoustical features of halls and objects for musical production. Throughout the history of music present a number of works have been composed which reflect a character of a particular space. The space is directly reflected in their tectonic structure or instrumentation. Twentieth century brought about an important change in perception of influences of the space on the listener. Within this context emerged collaborations between composers and architectures such as the cooperation on the Philips pavilion in Brussels between composer Edgard Var?se and architect Le Corbusier. Iannis Xenakis composer and architect in one person projects later the building Polyptops in Montréal. An important role in this change of perception has played the interest in the electro acoustical music from the fifties of the twentieth century onwards. The acoustic properties of architecture and acoustic phenomena within electro acoustic music form the basis of this thesis. It surveys the use of the principles of echo, reverberation, clarity, as well as flutter echo or ?reverse? of reverberation within these compositions. The analyses of these primary and derived acoustic phenomena in musical piece form the focus of this thesis. Whole thesis is divided into two main parts: First part describes acoustic properties of halls utilized in music and the principles of creating of a space with particular acoustic properties as described in a theory of building. Several conceptual types of space are distinguished here. Second part analyses selected compositions from the point of view of incorporating the space or spatial principles within its musical tectonics. Historical compositions from Lasso, Gabrieli, Tallis, Vivaldi?, but above all twentieth century compositions of Ives, Martinů, Kopelent or Nono are analyzed. Analyses are chosen that way to have such spectrum of pieces which are different in ways of working with space but which can simultaneously be complementary one to the other. This part also summarizes findings from analyzed compositions which are sorted by given phenomena.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".