MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2952978976 · doi:10.7202/1064523ar

Stratégies éditoriales dans les éditions des Arrêts d’Amours de Martial d’Auvergne publiées au XVI siècle : quand l’imprimeur-libraire choisit son public

2019· article· fr· W2952978976 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hélène Lannier

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)HumanitiesReading (process)PoliticsMainstreamArtClassicsPolitical scienceHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An absolute success in bookshops during the sixteenth century, Martial d’Auvergne’s Arrêts d’Amours saw thirty-one editions printed between 1500 and 1597. Far from being homogenous, this production shows a great deal of typographical and textual variance with each successive publication. Printer-booksellers actually appropriated the work and, integrating it into their editorial politics, adapted it to their own editorial context and, in turn, to their public. By analyzing the editorial discourse of Arrêts d’Amours’ first three editorial periods, this article intends to highlight, sometimes in contemporaneous periods, the tensions existing around this work and its orientation toward different reading publics, at times large and “mainstream,” at others more limited and specialized.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0140.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and Reformation→Same topicHistorical and Literary Studies→French-language works237,207→