Peter Campbell, Thomas E. Kaiser et Marisa Linton (dir.), Conspiracy in the French Revolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce petit livre élégant rassemble 9 contributions de collègues anglais et américains, qui abordent le thème du complot en suivant grossièrement la trame chronologique de la période révolutionnaire, découpée par grands thèmes.Peter Campbell traite de la période pré-révolutionnaire, Barry Shapiro de la lutte entre Mirabeau et l'Assemblée constituante, John Hardman des conspirations réelles et imaginaires autour de Louis XVI, David Andress des complots dénoncés dans les villes, Jill Maciak Walshaw des recherches des complots par les autorités dans les villages du Sud-Ouest, Marisa Linton des complots réels et imaginés autour des Jacobins en 1793-1794, Simon Burrows des émigrés, Laura Mason de la conspiration de Babeuf, enfin Thomas Kaiser propose une vision large inspirée d'une comparaison avec Catilina.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".