Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modalité de médiation parmi d’autres, le métier de guide se distingue par son ancienneté et par la pédagogie du récit qu’il met en oeuvre, aux antipodes des attentes d’autonomie et d’expériences que l’on suppose aux visiteurs. Aux château et remparts de la Cité de Carcassonne, parallèlement aux médiations assurées par les chargés d’action culturelle et aux visites audioguidées ou libres, subsistent, quoique menacées de disparaître, les visites des agents d’accueil et de surveillance (ou « gardiens »), selon des modalités et pour des raisons que l’on se propose ici d’analyser. L’enquête conduite dans le sillage de ces guides volontaires montre que l’exercice tient moins de la communication de savoirs que de la transmission de dispositions (passion du passé et goût d’apprendre) et du plaisir de la rencontre. Ses maîtres-mots que sont l’échange et le contact l’inscrivent dans notre présent du patrimoine, tandis qu’ils le ramènent à une expérience qui fait tout autant place, sinon plus, à la personne du guide qu’au monument.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.006 |
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".