MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2281660637 · doi:10.4000/ifha.1153

EHMER, Hermann, Burgen im Spiegel der historischen Überlieferung

2013· article· de· W2281660637 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Morsel

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de l’Institut français d’histoire en Allemagne · 2013
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval European History and Architecture
Canadian institutionsInstitut d'Histoire de l'Amérique Française
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyArtGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le château fait partie, tout comme le chevalier, de l'attirail moyenâgeux de la mythologie romantique qui empoisonne aujourd'hui encore si souvent les représentations de la société médiévale.En particulier, J.Z. souligne la contribution du militarisme propre au XIXe s. dans le brouillage du sens du château médiéval : les multiples représentations fausses et anachroniques liées au Moyen Âge se retrouvent dans le château, largement réduit à une fonction militaire qui a fait fleurir les créneaux, mâchicoulis et pont-levis sur les célèbres restaurations castrales de la fin du XIXe s.La situation avait d'autant moins de chances de changer que durant longtemps, le château est resté entre les seules mains des historiens de l'architecture ou de la guerre.L'extension progressive, à partir des années 1980, du cercle des spécialistes intégrés à l'étude des châteaux médiévaux (médiévistes, archéologues, historiens de la construction, géographes, ethnologues, biologistes) et le refus de se laisser enfermer dans une image martiale du château conduisent J.Z. à proposer « une nouvelle image du château médiéval » qui est la bienvenue même si elle ne prétend pas régler (et ne règle effectivement pas) tous les problèmes et toutes les faiblesses de nos connaissances.

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)0.003
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de l’Institut français d’histoire en AllemagneSame topicMedieval European History and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207