MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965581197 · doi:10.7202/1060976ar

Trouver lieu

2019· article· fr· W2965581197 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cécile Vergez-Sans

Bibliographic record

VenueMémoires du livre · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article propose une analyse du discours de l’éditeur d’albums pour enfants de la fin des années 1960, période de recomposition du paysage éditorial et des institutions de l’enfance. Quelle peut être la légitimité de ces discours dans le champ littéraire alors que les oeuvres pour enfants sont traditionnellement considérées comme mineures? L’analyse des catalogues d’éditeurs montre que l’existence même d’un discours ne va pas de soi. Le discours constitue une stratégie de récents éditeurs innovants. L’étude monographique de l’un d’entre eux, François Ruy-Vidal, permet de découvrir les multiples fonctions du discours, didactique, littéraire, politique, mais aussi les limites du dicible et les risques du discours.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.009

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.176 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueMémoires du livreSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207