MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567057244 · doi:10.4000/memini.834

Discussions au chapitre (IXe-XIe siècle) : la place (réelle et symbolique) de l’abbé était-elle si dominante?

2016· article· fr· W2567057244 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isabelle Cochelin

Bibliographic record

VenueMemini · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtAbbéArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au printemps 2011, mon compagnon, notre fille et moi visitions un ami, abbé d’un monastère bénédictin allemand. Le bâtiment était de construction récente, à peine plus de cent ans, mais l’idéal médiéval y était omniprésent, particulièrement dans son architecture néo-romane et l’organisation de l’espace. Lors de notre visite (très discrète) de quelques bâtiments de la clôture, je fus pourtant frappée par un détail dans la salle du chapitre, la place symboliquement importante donnée à l’abbé : ...

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeminiSame topicDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningFrench-language works237,207