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 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
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