MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2196814511 · doi:10.25071/2291-3637.40195

Napoleon Reversing the French Revolution.

2015· article· en· W2196814511 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heena Kapoor

Bibliographic record

VenueHPS The Journal of History and Political Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrench revolutionDeclarationPunishment (psychology)State (computer science)LawReignHarmPolitical scienceHistorySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Napoleon Bonaparte turned France into a police state during his reign.[1] However, he did not continue the French Revolution as the French people hoped. The French Revolution brought forth liberty and to do as ones will if it does not harm another.[2] A new document brought by the French Revolution embodying these principles was the French Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen in 1789.[3] This Declaration stated under article 11 that there was to be a free flow of ideas and opinions in writing and the press.[4] Article 7 outlawed any cruel harsh punishment and arbitrary sentencing.[5] However, Napoleon reversed these fundamental principles of the French Revolution. Writers, the press, along with the French people were subjected to the General police and prefects and were banned from saying anything controversial, against his regime, anything about France’s revolutionary past, and against France’s allies.[6] Arbitrary, cruel punishments, and harsh rules were enacted by Napoleon through the Penal Code in 1810.[7] Napoleon did not continue the French Revolution and reversed it by turning France into a police state and monitored and censored the French people, the press, and writers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHPS The Journal of History and Political ScienceSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207