MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004392344 · doi:10.4000/insitu.10933

Sacrifice subi ou sauvetage organisé. Le sort des archives en France durant la Grande Guerre, d’après le fonds de la direction ministérielle des Archives

2014· article· fr· W2004392344 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Chave

Bibliographic record

VenueIn Situ · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heritage
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La guerre de 1914-1918 a marqué les services d’archives en France comme les autres institutions culturelles. À travers le fonds d’archives de la direction ministérielle des Archives et les études consacrées aux départements du nord-est de la France, le sort du patrimoine archivistique durant cette période est aujourd’hui mieux connu : destructions majeures et ciblées, sélection des fonds à protéger et à évacuer vers des zones-refuge loin du front, tournées territoriales d’inspection et de recensement documentaire, donnent à voir l’implication concrète des archivistes, la mise en place de véritables plans d’urgence, des réponses ciblées à une situation de crise exceptionnelle, souvent dans le souvenir des pertes déjà subies lors de la guerre franco-prussienne de 1870. Cette mémoire des conflits successifs s’illustre particulièrement dans les négociations de l’immédiat après-guerre, lorsqu’il s’agit de faire reconnaître, par les réparations, les revendications ou une politique de reconstitution documentaire, l’ampleur du choc patrimonial subi.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.006

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIn SituSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207