MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2196166358 · doi:10.1353/his.2015.0038

Chats, loups, ours et autres cacodémons: Le zoomorphisme démoniaque dans l’imaginaire du montagnard vosgien des XVI e et XVII e siècles

2015· article· en· W2196166358 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean-Claude Diedler

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedieval and Early Modern Justice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In South Lorraine of the 16 th and 17 th centuries, the language of the mountain folk was replete with representations of diabolical animals. These malevolent beings, dubbed cacodemons, profoundly marked the fears of the inhabitants of isolated forest settlements. They were also one of the driving forces behind the upsurge in witch trials beginning in the 1580s. Using a lexicon specific to a period, population, and place, this article examines the mysterious workings of a widely shared imaginary world and strives to develop a coherent explanatory framework that broadens the approach to the concept of witchcraft, an area of special interest to historiographers today.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicMedieval and Early Modern JusticeFrench-language works237,207