MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911491543 · doi:10.3917/napo.030.0059

Alexandre Walewski, un acteur de la diplomatie du Second Empire : l’ambassade de Londres (1851-1855)

2017· article· fr· W2911491543 on OpenAlexaff
Quentin Courcelas

Bibliographic record

VenueNapoleonica La Revue · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Influence and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsEmployment and Social Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Par son ascendance illustre, ses qualités mondaines et ses liens avec les hommes politiques anglais, Alexandre Walewski devint ambassadeur de France à Londres le 18 juin 1851, où il défendit, avec le soutien de Napoléon III, l’entente avec l’Angleterre. Sur cette période de sa vie, les biographies sont anciennes et partielles. Fondé sur les approches nouvelles de l’histoire du Second Empire et de la diplomatie, et une variété de sources allant des archives du Quai d’Orsay aux témoignages d’époque, cet article propose de redécouvrir une personnalité du Second Empire en attirant l’attention sur des aspects peu étudiés. En quoi les différentes affaires internationales qu’il négocia éclairent-elles sur son rôle et ses qualités de diplomate ? Walewski correspond-il à la figure du diplomate classique, dans ses pratiques et ses talents ? En tant que femme d’ambassadeur, quel rôle joue la comtesse Walewska ? De quelles natures étaient les relations entre Walewski et le personnel de l’ambassade et du Quai d’Orsay ? Comment sa brochure L’Alliance anglaise permet-elle de saisir la complexité et le caractère surprenant de la pensée de Walewski, qui, tout en étant fils de Napoléon Ier, défendit vigoureusement une alliance franco-anglaise ?

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNapoleonica La RevueSame topicHistorical Influence and DiplomacyFrench-language works237,207