MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499325543 · doi:10.3917/gen.095.0136

Avec qui on écrit l'histoire

2014· article· fr· W1499325543 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Mariot

Bibliographic record

VenueGenèses · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combien sont les témoins édités à avoir les faveurs des spécialistes de la Grande Guerre ? Quelle proportion représentent-ils dans le total des auteurs « disponibles » ? Surtout, qui sont-ils ? À partir d’un décompte des témoins français mentionnés dans les index des ouvrages universitaires consacrés au monde combattant, l’article cherche à évaluer la taille et les usages du corpus d’auteurs effectivement partagés par les chercheurs. Au terme de l’analyse, l’article montre à la fois l’étroitesse et l’embourgeoisement du fond commun utilisé dans l’historiographie française des années 2000 : au total une soixante de témoins, presque tous issus des élites lettrées de la Belle Époque. Au final, il évoque quelques uns des problèmes posés, pour l’écriture du conflit, par cette surreprésentation des auteurs issus des classes supérieures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.187 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenèsesSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207