Les métamorphoses du discours hagiographique dans la longue durée : l’exemple d’Énimie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il s’agit de mener une réflexion méthodologique à partir du dossier d’Énimie (Lozère, France). Dans un premier temps, il faut comprendre la genèse du discours hagiographique à l’époque médiévale, en faisant appel à plusieurs facteurs et à plusieurs disciplines dont l’apport vient éclairer la première mise par écrit de la légende : archéologie, ethnologie et liturgie. Malgré ces éclairages, il reste des angles morts et il est illusoire de chercher une causa scribendi unique, tant la fabrication d’une légende est un phénomène éminemment complexe. Puis, de l’apparition de la légende jusqu’à nos jours, on voit comment le discours hagiographique est ainsi réactualisé, réécrit, réutilisé selon les attentes de ceux qui le promeuvent.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".