Les enjeux intellectuels et esthétiques de la technique dans les expertises de l’Académie royale d’architecture (1750-1790)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article prolonge les réflexions récentes sur les expertises techniques de l’Académie d’architecture en étendant l’observation aux discours et aux pratiques des inventeurs qui la sollicitent. Les procédés d’assemblage des bois proposés par le charpentier du roi Jean-Claude-François Taboureux en 1753 et 1789 offrent l’occasion de confronter différents avis de spécialistes de l’architecture : entrepreneurs du roi, experts jurés, maîtres de forge, et d’autres institutions de premier plan, comme la Compagnie des architectes experts. Il s’agit de montrer par cette approche l’effet déformant que peut produire l’étude de sources exclusivement tirées des institutions architecturales. Le parti permet de révéler les enjeux professionnels, intellectuels et esthétiques de la technique.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".