La Prise d’Orange. Chanson de geste (fin XIIe – début XIIIe siècle). Ed. and trans. Claude Lachet.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Prise d'Orange, third and final poem in the kernel cycle of Guillelme Fierebrace, has been well served in the past half century.Dufournet (1968), Kibler (1974), Payen (1970), not to mention Lachet (1972), have made it clear that this telling of how William of Orange captured the city which gave him his name, by injecting a powerful dose of comedy into the hero's biography, gives to the bloodthirsty heroics of epic a twist not only entertaining but (if we shake off some preconceptions about the period) very much in tune with the taste of our times.The text itself has been available in its multiplicity since Régnier's editio maior of 1966 and then in its (probably) best telling, the A version, Régnier's editio minor (1966; rev.ed.1983), translated by Lachet and Tusseau (1972).Specialists will continue to refer to Régnier (1966; 1983), but this new, bilingual edition gives reason to hope that the poem will soon make frequent appearances in the classroom, undergraduate and graduate, and become a fixture in the home library.For the Prise d'Orange is a masterpiece worthy of a prominent place in the cultural baggage of the educated public.Parody or slapstick, not only are William's adventures as told in the A version of the two closely related poems, the Charroi de Nîmes and the Prise d'Orange, very much in tune with our contemporary taste, the telling of those adventures found in that version is extraordinarily clever.Although I would contest Lachet's "sans conteste" (p.59), 1 I can agree heartily with him that the A version of the two poems is brilliant.1 "Des trois chansons du triptyque, la Prise d'Orange offre sans conteste la structure la plus soignée et la plus cohérente […]."The contours of the 26.2
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.007 |
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".