Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jordanès, historien d’origine illyrienne qui commence de nos jours à avoir meilleure réputation, donne à ses deux ouvrages, les Romana , une histoire du peuple romain, et les Getica , une histoire des Goths, des conclusions, en apparence, différentes, mais, dans les faits, complémentaires. C’est la description détaillée de la bataille des champs Catalauniques dans les Getica qui nous fournit un indice de l’apparente polarité des deux conclusions. Cette description de la bataille, livrée dans un style épique et plein d’allusions à Virgile, prend position sur trois points de manière saisissante : il faut combattre de front, il faut que la décision d’aller en guerre revienne finalement à l’empereur et il faut savoir saisir les occasions de faire la guerre. Ces points de vue reflètent les préoccupations contemporaines (VI e siècle), plus particulièrement au sein de l’élite constantinopolitaine, à propos de la guerre contre les Goths, comme l’attestent en partie les ouvrage de Procope et de Marcellin.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".