MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023787538 · doi:10.3917/gmcc.252.0007

Le mythe de la bataille de la Marne ou de l'échec du « plan Schlieffen » en septembre 1914 dans l'historiographie allemande

2013· article· fr· W2023787538 on OpenAlex
Benoît Lemay

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

VenueGuerres mondiales et conflits contemporains · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le mythe de la bataille de la Marne, qui laissait croire que si l’Allemagne n’avait pas perdu cette bataille elle aurait remporté la guerre, s’est forgé avant la fin de la Première Guerre mondiale. Il s’amalgamait parfaitement à la légende du « coup de poignard dans le dos » qui avait vu le jour dès la fin du conflit. Il s’agissait d’un déni de la défaite qui prétendait que seule la défaillance de quelques hommes avait privé le Reich de la victoire en 1914, avant que la trahison de l’arrière ne l’oblige à déposer les armes en 1918, laissant l’Allemagne démunie face à la volonté de revanche des vainqueurs. À l’aube du centenaire de la bataille de la Marne, une étude sur les principales opérations ayant conduit à celle-ci s’impose afin de mieux en cerner les mythes et les réalités dans l’historiographie allemande.

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)0.002
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 score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · 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