Les fantômes de Gabriel Monod. Papiers et paroles de Jules Michelet, érudit et prophète
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article se propose de revisiter la relation, vivante et posthume, entre deux figures d’historiens, opposées en apparence par la tradition et les méthodes : Gabriel Monod et Jules Michelet. Et cependant, le fondateur de la Revue historique fut aussi l’héritier secondaire des papiers de l’historien-écrivain. En suivant le fil rouge de l’unique lettre connue, adressée par Monod à Michelet en 1868, nous avons souhaité revenir sur les « fantômes » de la jeunesse de Monod, tout en suivant leurs échos, à travers les traces directes ou posthumes du rapport intime et professionnel des deux historiens. Il s’agit de retrouver la cohérence d’un projet intellectuel « total », poursuivi par un historien qui demeure, malgré tout, sinon malgré lui, « généraliste ». Ainsi s’éclaire la complémentarité du double acte qui achève la carrière et la vie de Monod : un cours – temporaire – au Collège de France et la transmission – définitive – des papiers de Michelet dans une institution publique en 1912.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".