MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503263012 · doi:10.4000/ahrf.11973

Thomas W. Gaehtgens et Gregor Wedekind (dir.), Le culte des grands hommes 1750‑1850

2011· article· fr· W1503263012 on OpenAlexaff
Annie Duprat

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales historiques de la Révolution française · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Aesthetics, and Perception
Canadian institutionsInstitut d'Histoire de l'Amérique Française
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alors que le siècle de Louis XIV brillait encore de tous ses feux, La Bruyère, s’interrogeant en 1688 sur les personnages de l’Histoire, remarquait : « Peut-être qu’Alexandre n’était qu’un héros, et que César était un grand homme ». Au cours du siècle suivant, la réflexion sur les « grands hommes » s’est renouvelée et enrichie jusqu’à la création du Panthéon en 1791. Interroger la notion de « Grand homme » (au sens « genre humain ? », puisque de « grandes femmes » point, dans ce livre comme d...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales historiques de la Révolution françaiseSame topicArt, Aesthetics, and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207