MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999704429 · doi:10.4000/textyles.919

Prolégomènes à l’enseignement de la littérature belge

2001· article· fr· W1999704429 on OpenAlexaff
Hugues Robaye

Bibliographic record

VenueTextyles · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Language Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le charlatanisme, du moins la variété que je cultive de ce produit mal vu, consiste à être transporté d’un tel enthousiasme devant les côtés les plus simples, les plus généraux de ce qu’il peut y avoir de passionnant dans la nature, les livres, l’Histoire, la psychologie, que sans prendre le temps de vérifier les détails, ou d’avoir recours à l’érudition, on se fie tout juste à son propre goût, à son parti pris, à son imagination, à son inspiration, on s’abandonne tout entier au plaisir de s’...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.005

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.313 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTextylesSame topicFrench Language Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207