MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299065930 · doi:10.4000/elh.473

Récits d’archives

2014· article· fr· W2299065930 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Piégay-Gros

Bibliographic record

VenueÉcrire l histoire · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsBibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTestimonialArtHumanitiesArt historyBusinessAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parce qu’il met en scène l’archivage, le récit d’archives décloisonne les pratiques littéraires et historiennes. Il trouve dans l’archive une puissance d’émotion particulière. Plus, il fait de l’archive un foyer de subjectivation, pour le narrateur, qu’il soit historien, romancier, ou autobiographe. Trois usages différents de l’archive sont distingués : l’usage documentaire, l’usage testimonial et l’usage mélancolique, qui lui-même ne recouvre pas complètement l’usage nostalgique.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0130.007
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1560.062

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.136 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉcrire l histoireSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207