MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035683761 · doi:10.1353/his.2012.0021

Le don de soi. La valeur des tableaux dans les testaments épiscopaux français (fin XVII e –fin XVIII e siècle)

2012· article· en· W2035683761 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laurent Regard

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although paintings are often seen as part of material culture, the wills of 18th-century bishops have reserved a special fate for certain works. The singular aspect of these works resides in their ability to embody an aspect of the donor. Focusing on this singularization process (by the way the paintings are depicted or exhibited or by the stories they convey) allows us to understand how these images build and strengthen links of affection or service. The way the various values associated with paintings interact and play out depending on the recipient reflects the perceived equivalence in the bishop’s mind between the value of a gift and the value of the recipient, and serves to intermingle related material, affective, and social aspects. The aim of this study is to identify the conditions contributing to the singularization of objects and their involvement in affective links. It is also intended to contribute to the history of the value of art, with less emphasis on the ontological than on the historical and social.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningFrench-language works237,207