MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139925935 · doi:10.3917/rdn.366.0491

Pourquoi des hérauts d'armes ? Les raisons d'une institution

2006· article· fr· W2139925935 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue du Nord · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Le point de départ de cet article est la constatation que les hérauts n’ont eu d’importance qu’au cours de la période – du xiii e au xvi e siècle – durant laquelle les cours princières furent un moyen essentiel de la médiatisation de l’aristocratie. Durant cette phase, les princes eurent besoin d’une instance qui fît le lien entre les revendications de leur pouvoir et la liberté de la noblesse. Les hérauts constituèrent cette instance. Ils symbolisaient cette structure double en servant tout autant un maître noble que le bien commun, en paix comme en guerre, comme messagers et comme organisateurs des tournois et des duels, par le cérémonial comme par les lettres. Ils étaient, au sens traditionnel, les avocats de l’honneur noble autant que de modernes technocrates de l’appareil gouvernemental des princes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.184 · 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