Espaces publics en Europe dans les guides de voyage : pratiques et représentations. 1950-1970
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quelle place les guides français concernant l’Europe et parus entre 1950 et 1970 font-ils à la description des espaces urbains non-construits ? À première vue, ce type de publication s’attache principalement à montrer au lecteur des objets architecturaux, en rendant assez peu compte des qualités du dispositif spatial urbain, de sa morphologie, de son ambiance, de ses usages et des fonctions qui lui sont affectées. Qu’est-ce qu’une rue, un boulevard, une place aux yeux des auteurs d’un guide ? Quelle lisibilité donnent-ils à la forme et aux usages de l’espace non-bâti ? Au-delà des guides, ces interrogations permettent de saisir la manière dont on perçoit et dont on s’approprie ce type d’« espaces publics » en fonction de la conception du paysage urbain à un moment donné. Comment les itinéraires proposés intègrent-ils des descriptions des transformations que subissent les villes européennes à cette époque ? La reconstruction qui touche de nombreuses villes après la Seconde Guerre mondiale semble faire l’objet d’une attention particulière des auteurs de guides.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".