MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736631011 · doi:10.4000/bibnum.499

Une enquête de Biot en 1803, sur l’origine extra-terrestre des météorites

2023· article· fr· W2736631011 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Moatti

Bibliographic record

VenueBibNum · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Natural History
Canadian institutionsBibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesBiot numberPolitical scienceArtPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce rapport, que Biot lira à l’Académie le 18 juillet, douze jours après son retour, se présente comme une véritable investigation policière d’une grande rigueur scientifique. Encore en 1790, lors de la chute météoritique de Barbotan (Gers), notables et savants locaux se moquaient des dires des paysans, accordant peu de crédit à leurs témoignages. Certains savants reliaient certaines chutes, comme celle de Sienne en 1798, à des éruptions volcaniques, comme celle du Vésuve qui avait eu lieu quelques jours avant. Le rapport de Biot est le premier écrit qui atteste, de la part d’un savant, de la réalité extra-terrestre (c’est à dire d’origine non terrestre) des chutes de météores.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.218 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBibNumSame topicHistory of Science and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207