MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084612044 · doi:10.1353/ecf.0.0001

“Ce lieu de délices”: Art and Imitation in the French Libertine Cabinet

2008· article· fr· W2084612044 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul J. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Art and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCabinet (room)ArchitectureArtPavilionMotif (music)EroticismArt historyLiteratureHistoryAestheticsVisual artsHuman sexualitySociologyArchaeologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

by 1777, when Damon, the young protagonist of Vivant Denon’s Point de lendemain, admits: “j’avais beaucoup de curiosite; ce n’etait plus Mme de T... que je desirais; c’etait [son] cabinet,” architecture had become an important motif in eighteenth-century French literature, and space, as Denon’s tale demonstrates, was often pressed into the service of eroticism.1 Nowhere was architecture’s erotic potential more widely explored than in the number of libertine writings that appeared during the last century of the ancien regime, and throughout the century, the libertine text provided an arena in which authors reflected upon the changes that architecture underwent in France as early as the latter part of the seventeenth century. As architects moved to incorporate “commodite” into their plans for living spaces, creating smaller and more intimate rooms that contrasted with the larger, more formal spaces of the previous century, libertine writers put these spaces into play, mining them for their erotic potential, and making the niche, the alcove, the boudoir, and the cabinet, which were central to eighteenth-century French notions of architecture, mainstays of the libertine text.2

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.026
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicHistorical Art and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207