MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400372327 · doi:10.1086/ahr.110.4.1257

:The Making of Revolutionary Paris.

2005· article· en· W2400372327 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Johnson Kent Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoriographyQuarter (Canadian coin)Ideal (ethics)PoliticsHistoryStatement (logic)French revolutionLiteratureClassicsMedia studiesArt historySociologyArtLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this book, David Garrioch sets out to fill a surprising lacuna in anglophone historiography on France. The past quarter‐century has seen a burgeoning specialized literature on the city of Paris in the eighteenth century, exploring every aspect of its urban geography, social life, and political history in the run‐up to and during the French Revolution. Yet so far there has been no survey or synthesis of such writing for a wider English‐speaking audience. Garrioch, who has already contributed two important monographs to the recent historiography, would seem to be the ideal candidate to fill the gap. In many ways, his book succeeds admirably in its aims. There can be few historians who possess Garrioch's command of the Parisian archives, or who have made so thorough a study of the vast and growing secondary literature on the city. His synthesis of these sources is presented in unfailingly concise and elegant prose, accompanied by a wealth of apt illustrations and photographs. This work will serve for years to come as an effective launching pad for further research. At the same time, however, readers who are expecting a major statement on the role of Paris in the origins and development of the French Revolution may well be disappointed. For after what appears to be a long wind‐up pointing in just this direction, Garrioch's book reaches curiously cautious and equivocal conclusions, that fall short of the title's promise.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207