MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018471994 · doi:10.3917/infle.044.0039

La beauté en armure

2020· article· fr· W3018471994 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier Renaudeau

Bibliographic record

VenueInflexions · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedieval and Early Modern Justice
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coûteux équipement de l’élite des combattants nobles, l’armure complète est avant tout une protection fonctionnelle étroitement forgée aux mensurations de son propriétaire et adaptée à ce sport de haut niveau, mortel de surcroît, qu’est le combat. Mais ces harnois sont autant déterminés par des critères esthétiques que par des nécessités défensives et évoluent au gré des modes ou se couvrent d’ornements manifestant l’opulence, comme le goût des membres de la caste privilégiée qui en fait usage. Cette aspiration à la beauté a même entraîné la naissance, vers 1530, d’armures exclusivement dédiées à l’apparat, transformant le guerrier en une figure héroïque rehaussée par le talent des orfèvres.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInflexionsSame topicMedieval and Early Modern JusticeFrench-language works237,207