Partis en Hainaut? La place de la noblesse hainuyère dans la lutte entre Jacqueline de Bavière et Jean IV de Brabant (1424-1428)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hainault Factions? The Role of the Hainault Nobility in the Struggle between Jacqueline of Bavaria and John IV of Brabant (1424- 1428)From March until June 1425, part of Hainault was devastated by the war that was waged between Jacqueline of Bavaria, heiress to the county, and her exhusband, John IV of Brabant, both of whom were pretenders to the sovereignty of the county. On this occasion, part of the county's nobility split up and chose to support one of the opposing sides. Among the various incentives that might have influenced the nobles, two predominant elements seem to have motivated their choice of camp: the territorial base of the nobles concerned and John IV's personality. The weakness of his character may have attracted some nobles who planned to take advantage of the situation or, conversely, it may have failed to please some members of the high-ranking and ancient nobility of Hainault, among whom chivalric ideals were still very much alive. This article is part of the special issue 'The history of the nobility in the Netherlands and Belgium'.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".