Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
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".