MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021969216 · doi:10.7202/030963ar

La communauté des maîtres écrivains de Paris et l’enseignement de l’écriture sous l’Ancien Régime : dans la destinée de l’art calligraphique

2006· article· fr· W2021969216 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine Métayer

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Papers · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A la fin du XVIe siècle naquit la communauté des maîtres écrivains jurés de Paris. Durant plus de deux cents ans, ses membres ont su dresser leur savoir distinctif sur une certaine forme d'écriture, purement artistique, tracée en respectant les règles sophistiquées de l'art calligraphique. Dans une société à dominante non-écrivante, cette habileté leur valut initialement, entre autres droits, celui, exclusif, de la tenue des écoles publiques d'écriture, pour qu 'enfin soient diffusés les fondements d'une écriture réglée dans sa perfection formelle. Or, les maîtres écrivains ne purent maintenir leur privilège dans l'enseignement, vite remis en cause dans le contexte d'alphabétisation croissante que connut l'ancien régime français et devant la lente diffusion, qui lui fut corrélative, d'une connaissance pratique et non plus esthétique de l'écriture. Entre ces deux réalités scripturales, la communauté a parcouru un itinéraire fort singulier, à contre courant de l'expansion du réseau scolaire et dont les faits marquants seront ici retracés.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical PapersSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207