Memory, invention and the Breton state: the first inventory of the ducal archives (1395) and the beginnings of Montfort historiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general importance of a small group of medieval Breton historians, either employed in the ducal chancery or close to the ruling dynasty, in shaping a view of the Breton past that was favourable to the contemporary policies of the Montfortist dukes of Brittany between the late fourteenth and early sixteenth century has been well explained by recent writers. Mystery, however, still surrounds the identity of the author of the earliest ambitious attempt to recount the duchy's history from remotest times to the present in the Chronicon Briocense, ‘Chronicle of St-Brieuc’, compiled c.1389–1416. By using evidence that has come to light in the course of editing the first inventory of ducal archives (1395), this article seeks to confirm earlier hypotheses that Master Hervé Le Grant, keeper of the Trésor des chartes, is the most likely candidate as author of the Chronicon. The probability that he is also the main perpetrator of a series of well-known forged documents intended to justify ducal prerogatives which continued to have an impact on how the history of Brittany was written long after the duchy had lost its independence is also explored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".