MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135297269 · doi:10.3917/gmcc.252.0027

Du plan Schlieffen au plan Moltke : mythes et réalités des plans de guerre allemands et de la responsabilité du Reich dans le déclenchement de la Première Guerre mondiale

2013· article· fr· W2135297269 on OpenAlex
Benoît Lemay

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGuerres mondiales et conflits contemporains · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’idée d’un plan Schlieffen comme d’une panacée ou d’une recette assurée de la victoire n’est qu’un mythe. Cependant, contrairement à la controverse suscitée par la thèse de Terence Zuber, il ne faut pas en déduire pour autant qu’il n’y a jamais eu de plan de guerre conçu par Schlieffen et plus tard actualisé par Moltke qui prévoyait faire d’une guerre presque inévitablement sur deux fronts une guerre pour ainsi dire sur deux fronts successifs, d’abord à l’ouest, puis à l’est. À l’aube du centenaire de la Première Guerre mondiale, il nous paraît opportun de faire le point sur les mythes et les réalités des plans de guerre allemands et sur la responsabilité du Reich dans le déclenchement du conflit.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.235 · 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