MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993368945 · doi:10.7202/030506ar

Entre les familles et l’État : les procureurs et la procédure au XVIe siècle

2006· article· fr· W1993368945 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEuropean Political History Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le développement de l'État qui caractérise la période moderne, les procureurs jouent un rôle crucial : celui d'intermédiaires entre la justice et les justiciables. Professionnels de la procédure, ils gagnent en importance au XVIe siècle, en conjonction avec la codification des procédures qu'effectue à ce moment l'État monarchique. Exerçant une fonction publique, ils obtiennent rapidement le monopole de la représentation en justice, prenant sur eux du coup tous les torts du système. Cette justice au quotidien à laquelle ils sont associés est souple et adaptée si on la compare à l'image qu'en donnent les ouvrages juridiques. Les familles sont confrontées à cette justice mais elles l'utilisent aussi grâce aux bons soins des procureurs qui se mettent alors à leur service tout autant qu'au service de l'État. Ce rôle d'intermédiaires et l'ambiguïté de leur position entre les familles et l'État font des procureurs les boucs émissaires de tous les ratés du système, préservant par le fait même, l'image d'une justice royale au-dessus des contingences quotidiennes.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.196 · 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