MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036361438 · doi:10.7202/501253ar

À propos de l’Édit de Nantes : la tradition latine et la tolérance

2000· article· fr· W2036361438 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alain Michel

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes littéraires · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyThe RenaissancePromulgationArtPolitical scienceArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Si le mot n'est pas fréquent dans les textes de l'Antiquité, l'esprit de la tolérance y préside par la culture humaniste du doute critique qui diffère sans cesse la certitude et partant l'intolérance intellectuelle. Avec Cicéron, la tolérance apparaît au principe d'une pensée dialectique et au centre de la réflexion morale. Et cette pensée de la tolérance jette déjà les bases du conflit perdurant qu'instaure la notion de tolérance, clivée entre liberté individuelle et exigences d'un droit collectif pour tous. Les débats religieux dans l'empire romain, divisé entre paganisme et christianisme, en seront la preuve. Le triomphe de l'Église au Moyen Âge aurait pu signifier sans exception une ère de dogmatisme ; il n'en reste que s'y font entendre la voix de Jean de Salisbury, ensuite celle deThomas d'Aquin.À la Renaissance, la notion resurgit en deux thèses opposées, celle d'un exercice privé chez Juste Lipse et celle d'un exercice collectif de la liberté de conscience que prône Jean Bodin : l'Édit de Nantes réalisera un compromis, il sera aussi le produit d'une histoire ancienne qui recouvre les raisons plus présentes de sa promulgation.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueÉtudes littérairesSame topicReformation and Early Modern ChristianityFrench-language works237,207