Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au cours des années 1722-1724, quelques savants de l’Académie royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres – l’abbé Anselme, l’abbé Sallier, Louis Jean Lévesque de Pouilly et Nicolas Fréret notamment – débattirent vigoureusement du degré de foi qu’il fallait accorder aux oeuvres historiques anciennes lorsque les rares témoignages contemporains des faits qu’elles relataient et sur lesquels elles auraient pu s’appuyer paraissaient douteux, comme c’était le cas pour les quatre premiers siècles de Rome. En nous penchant sur les textes de cette querelle, nous réfléchissons au rôle tenu à l’époque par le témoignage dans la connaissance historique, aux conséquences de sa raréfaction, de sa fragmentation, voire de son absence : comment l’histoire, qui est testis temporum selon le magnifique éloge de Cicéron (De Oratore 2, 9), peut-elle subsister sans testis ? Nous éclairons par cet examen, dans la transition lente d’une pratique littéraire de l’histoire à sa pratique scientifique, le rôle des monuments, des traités, des lois, des relevés astronomiques et des autres archives qui ne transcrivent ni témoignage ni mémoire personnelle.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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.
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".