MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922687044 · doi:10.4000/memini.1198

Judging Faith, Punishing Sins. Inquisitions and Consistories in the Early Modern World, éd. Charles H. Parker – Gretchen Starr-LeBeau, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2017, 408 pages, ISBN 978-1-107-1-4024-0, 90 £.

2018· article· en· W2922687044 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Juliana Michel

Bibliographic record

VenueMemini · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicColonialism, slavery, and trade
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaithArtLaw and economicsTheologyPhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dirigé par Charles H. Parker, historien spécialiste de l’histoire globale, et par Gretchen Starr-LeBeau, spécialiste de l’Inquisition espagnole, cet ouvrage collectif réunissant vingt-six collaborateurs vise des objectifs ambitieux. Il propose à la fois une introduction à l’histoire des inquisitions et des consistoires – deux institutions caractérisées par leurs fonctions de contrôle et de surveillance des populations –, un état des lieux de la recherche, une étude comparative, ainsi que des ...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.018
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.230 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeminiSame topicColonialism, slavery, and tradeFrench-language works237,207