MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001969758 · doi:10.4000/anabases.811

Errata, absurditates, deliria et hallucinationes. Le cheminement de la critique historique face à la mythologie phénicienne de Philon de Byblos : un cas problématique et exemplaire de testis unus

2010· article· fr· W2001969758 on OpenAlexaff
Corinne Bonnet

Bibliographic record

VenueAnabases · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heritage
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’Histoire phénicienne de Philon de Byblos prétend reposer sur le témoignage, traduit en grec, d’un sage phénicien très archaïque et très savant, Sanchouniathon. La construction de cette autorité a suscité très tôt des réactions critiques de la part des historiens et des philologues. On examine ici comment les approches, les arguments et les conclusions ont évolué dans le temps, entre le xvie et le xxe siècle, en fonction des questions que l’on posait au texte et des paradigmes probatoires que l’on mettait en œuvre.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.031
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnabasesSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207