MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109841709 · doi:10.1017/s0008423900000263

La critique de la politique dans les Essais : Montaigne et Machiavel

2000· article· fr· W2109841709 on OpenAlexaff
Philip Knee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyConscienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La difference entre le rapport de Machiavel et celui de Montaigne a la politique s'impose d'emblee a leurs lecteurs. Face a une oeuvre machiavelienne presqu'entierement vouee a analyser la chose publique et a decrire les conditions d'une action efficace en son sein, Montaigne se montre avant tout moraliste dans ses ecrits comme dans sa vie, ceest–a–dire plus soucieux de proteger les droits de sa conscience que de repondre aux exigences de la vie publique, et plus attache a une description de son existence singuliere qu'a une analyse systematique du fonctionnement du monde politique.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.035
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicFrench Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207