MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7155172204 · doi:10.7202/1124300ar

Binômes interartistiques. L’impact du théâtre et de la danse sur les méthodes de création musicale de Georges Aperghis et Thierry De Mey

2025· article· en· W7155172204 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Krystina Marcoux, Isabelle Héroux

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue musicale OICRM · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLiterature, Musicology, and Cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetanarrativeContext (archaeology)Identity (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peu d’études se sont penchées sur l’influence directe de la danse ou du théâtre sur les méthodes de création musicale des compositeurs collaborant étroitement avec ces milieux artistiques. Dans le cas de Georges Aperghis, les recherches se sont souvent limitées à son traitement de la voix ou du texte, tandis que celles portant sur Thierry De Mey se sont centrées sur ses réalisations pour le cinéma ou la danse. Or, leur relation respective avec Antoine Vitez et Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker, et l’impact de ce dialogue sur leurs processus créatifs, demeurent largement sous-étudiés. Pour combler cette lacune, cet article adopte une double approche documentaire et analytique, s’appuyant sur des entretiens, l’examen d’archives et la comparaison des spectacles Jojo (1990) et Simplexity (2016). Il en ressort que l’improvisation, la fragmentation, la mise en tension et le rôle actif des interprètes constituent des pratiques récurrentes, confirmées par l’étude d’autres oeuvres. En définitive, l’interdisciplinarité induite par ces collaborations renouvelle profondément la démarche compositionnelle d’Aperghis et de De Mey.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue musicale OICRMSame topicLiterature, Musicology, and Cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207