MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980608115 · doi:10.4000/aad.3585

Querelles historiennes sur la Révolution française : l’argumentation par le chiffre des victimes et les polémiques sur la qualification génocidaire

2019· article· fr· W2980608115 on OpenAlex
Marc Angenot

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArgumentation et analyse du discours · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À partir du Directoire et à travers les 19e et 20e siècles des polémiques récurrentes se sont développées sur le nombre des victimes de la Révolution. Cette argumentation statistique devant les massacres de masse – évidemment très conjecturale – représente une démarche nouvelle issue du traumatisme occasionné par le bouleversement révolutionnaire et la Terreur. Elle engendre une forme contradictoire de pathos qui va devenir un propre de la modernité : un intense sentiment d’horreur refoulé qui ne trouve à s’exprimer que par le biais de « froides » additions de morts anonymes. Quant aux événements de la Vendée, ils suscitent dès 1795 la qualification néologique de « populicide » qui réapparaît en 1945 sous la forme « génocide ». De la Révolution aux guerres des deux siècles modernes, aux conquêtes coloniales et aux massacres de populations entières, historiens, démographes et économistes mais aussi les pacifistes ont repris jusqu’à nous la tâche de chiffrer les morts et d’en tirer argument.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.238 · 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