MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394937311 · doi:10.1086/ahr.110.5.1601

:Le Blanc de France: La construction des signes identitaires pendant les guerres de religion (1562–1629).<i>(Travaux d'Humanisme et Renaissance, number 396.)</i>

2005· article· fr· W2394937311 on OpenAlexaff
Megan C. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Influence and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe RenaissanceArtHumanitiesArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Denise Turrel's book is yet another worthy study that underscores the sophistication of early modern symbology. The author examines the shifting usage and meaning of the color white over the course of the French Wars of Religion. Specifically, Turrel is fascinated by the emergence of the white scarf as emblematic of the seventeenth-century French monarchy and nation. As she points out in her introduction, the white scarf was the well-recognized symbol of French military authority on the battlefields of seventeenth-century Europe. However, its origins lay in Huguenot resistance to royal authority during the earliest days of the French civil wars. The thrust of this clear and well-researched study is to understand the transformation of the usage of the color white between 1562 and 1629, and in doing so the transformation of the French nation in the hands of its first Bourbon ruler, the erstwhile Protestant Henry of Navarre. Contemporary memoirs and histories written from a variety of political perspectives as well as visual representations (paintings, engravings, tapestries) of the key figures and events of the Wars of Religion provide the bulk of Turrel's source base.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.318 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical Influence and DiplomacyFrench-language works237,207