MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944484459 · doi:10.1080/09612025.2019.1613739

Touring a once pious nation: gender, medievalism, tourism, and Catholic nation-building in early twentieth-century France

2019· article· en· W2944484459 on OpenAlexaff
Sofie Lachapelle

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen s History Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismFaithMiracleSAINTStatueReligious tourismCuriosityPatron saintExposition (narrative)HistoryTravel writingMedievalismReligious studiesArtAncient historyArt historyPolitical scienceMiddle AgesLawLiteratureTheologyPhilosophyArchaeologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1900, the first of the Guide national et catholique du voyageur en France appeared. Published by the Assumptionist Order alongside the Exposition Universelle, the guidebook suggested sites for Catholic travellers visiting Paris that year. Additional volumes on other regions of France soon followed. Known for their national pilgrimages to Lourdes, the Assumptionists departed here from their usual publications by presenting a religious travel experience based on curiosity more than faith, yet motivated by nostalgia for a medieval, pious France; a nation anchored in its regional traditions. Central to the guidebooks were female religious personalities—saint, visionaries, and miracle workers—who reflected this idealized vision of the nation. Using the lens of gender, this article explores the Guide's use of female religious figures and Marian apparitions in the construction of a Catholic nation to be explored, reaffirmed, and travelled at the beginning of the twentieth century.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen s History ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207