MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316976618 · doi:10.1177/0096144210391593

The Historic Building in the Modernized City: The Cathedrals of Paris and Rouen in the Nineteenth Century

2011· article· en· W2316976618 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin D. Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban History · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEuropean Political History Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCity University of New York
KeywordsModernization theoryQuarter (Canadian coin)DemolitionEmpireSubject (documents)ArchitectureHistoryArchaeologyArtAncient historyEconomic historyArt historyPolitical scienceLawLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the most ambitious and comprehensive projects for urban modernization in the nineteenth century was that of Paris where the prefect of the Department of the Seine, Baron Georges- Eugène Haussmann, under the auspices of the Second Empire of Napoleon III, engaged in a thorough-going program of demolition, street replanning, and reconstruction. Although much of the earlier fabric of Paris was destroyed, the major medieval monuments were largely preserved. This article considers the question of how preserved buildings, especially cathedrals, functioned in renovated cities and takes as its case studies Paris and Rouen. Like Paris, Rouen was a rapidly expanding economic center during the last quarter of the nineteenth century and was similarly reworked urbanistically. It too had a major medieval cathedral to be reckoned with. As this article demonstrates, the ways in which these cathedrals could and should represent the national past were the subject of considerable debate through the nineteenth century.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.019
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Urban HistorySame topicEuropean Political History AnalysisFrench-language works237,207