MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015167090 · doi:10.4000/lhomme.5

Des mots pour inventorier, ordonner, montrer

2000· article· fr· W2015167090 on OpenAlexaff
Solange Pinton

Bibliographic record

VenueL Homme · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Identity and Heritage
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En retraçant l’histoire du musée de Guéret, cet article se propose de réfléchir aux problèmes de classification et de présentation auxquels est confronté un musée qui a la double ambition de montrer et de transmettre un savoir, les sciences naturelles étant, au début du xixe siècle, considérées comme le modèle de classification par excellence, applicable à tous les domaines. Les tentatives pour y soumettre les antiquités, puis les objets d’art et d’archéologie, font apparaître l’extrême diversité des ordres possibles, doués chacun d’une cohérence propre, d’où, peu à peu, émergeront de nouvelles présentations et conceptions muséographiques.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL HommeSame topicCultural Identity and HeritageFrench-language works237,207