MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W287839943 · doi:10.1215/26885220-95.4.426

Paul Valéry à tous les points de vue. Hommage à Judith Robinson-Valéry

2004· article· fr· W287839943 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pascal Michelucci

Bibliographic record

VenueRomanic Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Literary Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconCitationArtArt historyHumanitiesComputer scienceLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book Review| November 01 2004 Paul Valéry à tous les points de vue. Hommage à Judith Robinson-Valéry Paul Valéry à tous les points de vue. Hommage à Judith Robinson-Valéry. Gifford, Paul, Pickering, Robert et Schmidt-Radefeldt, Jürgen, eds. Paris: L’Harmattan, coll. Critiques littéraires, 2003. Pp. 216. Pascal Michelucci Pascal Michelucci University of Toronto at Mississauga Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Romanic Review (2004) 95 (4): 426–427. https://doi.org/10.1215/26885220-95.4.426 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Pascal Michelucci; Paul Valéry à tous les points de vue. Hommage à Judith Robinson-Valéry. Romanic Review 1 November 2004; 95 (4): 426–427. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/26885220-95.4.426 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsRomanic Review Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2004 The Trustees of Columbia University2004 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Reviews You do not currently have access to this content.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRomanic ReviewSame topicHistorical and Literary AnalysesFrench-language works237,207