Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Monnaie des Médailles, qui fabriquait les médailles et les jetons des rois de France, conservait tous les outillages nécessaires à la frappe de ces objets dans son atelier. Quand Louis XIV nomma Nicolas Delaunay (1646-1727) « directeur du balancier des Médailles » en 1696, il lui demanda d’établir un inventaire détaillé. Ce travail de compilation dénotait, déjà à l’époque, l’intérêt suscité pour la valeur artistique et technique de ce fonds. Quand la Monnaie des Médailles fut réunie à la Commission des Monnaies en 1832, on décida de créer un musée monétaire. Installé dans les salons d’honneur de l’Hôtel des Monnaies, il reçut en dotation tous les outillages de médailles et de jetons hérités des souverains d’Ancien Régime. Sa mission était de servir de vitrine diplomatique pour promouvoir les savoir-faire artistiques et techniques des ateliers de fabrication. Aujourd’hui, le nouveau musée du 11 Conti expose soixante-dix poinçons et matrices en une présentation unique et didactique.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.017 |
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".