Sous la loupe d’Hyperbase : les combattants russes dans l’oeil de la presse illustrée française de 1914 à 1919
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En nous appuyant sur un échantillon de la presse illustrée française, nous examinons les représentations des combattants russes, alliés et ennemis, entre 1914 et 1919. Précisément, nous tenterons de retracer l’évolution, d’un point de vue à la fois historique et linguistique, des dénominations et des qualifications employées dans la presse française à l’égard des combattants russes, dans le contexte du discours de propagande durant la Grande Guerre. Nous analyserons ainsi les permanences et les transformations de ces représentations. Pour ce faire, nous avons constitué notre corpus en dépouillant systématiquement trois magazines français entre 1914 et 1919, soitL’Illustration,Jesaistoutet le supplément illustré duPetitJournal. Les analyses documentaires et statistiques de ce corpus à l’aide du logicielHyperbasenous ont permis de dresser un portrait détaillé des représentations des combattants russes telles que véhiculées par ces journaux.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".