MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921181849 · doi:10.4000/books.cths.4088

Un Rouennais aux états généraux de 1789 : Pierre Nicolas de Fontenay

2018· book-chapter· fr· W2921181849 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Mézin

Bibliographic record

VenueÉditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques eBooks · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsBibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Entre le 1er mai 1789 et le 23 juillet 1791, Nicolas de Fontenay (1743-1806), riche industriel et député du tiers état de Rouen aux États généraux, a écrit quotidiennement à son épouse Élisabeth Ribard ; cette correspondance a été interrompue à trois reprises, lors des séjours de Mme de Fontenay auprès de son mari. Ces lettres ont été écrites comme une sorte de journal des événements politiques exceptionnels auxquels Fontenay prenait part ; il tenait à y associer sa famille, en particulier son beau-père et son beau-frère. Il s’agit d’une correspondance privée et destinée à le rester. Le ton y est donc très libre et l’auteur ne cache pas ses opinions et ses sentiments. Les nouvelles familiales y sont entremêlées aux nouvelles publiques qui constituent l’essentiel du propos. Les lettres sont plus ou moins longues, selon la matière et le temps dont dispose leur auteur pour les écrire, les dernières n’étant pas significativement plus courtes que les premières. Rien qu’en raison de leur nombre, les 626 lettres Fontenay forment un ensemble tout à fait remarquable, qui mérite d’être connu.

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), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0280.013
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques eBooksSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207