Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude s’inscrit dans l’histoire de la grammaire française et porte sur un corpus de livres d’exercices publiés en lien avec les Élémens de la grammaire françoise de Lhomond (1780). L’étude contextualise la grammaire publiée par Lhomond et l’environnement scolaire dans lequel les livres d’exercices prennent place en France au début du XIXe siècle. La recherche analyse le fonctionnement de ces premiers exercices en les découpant en trois phases : phase de mise en place (numérotation, titres), phase d’exercice (forme et contenu de la consigne, données de travail) et phase de réponse. Elle permet de jeter un éclairage sur les débuts de cette pratique pédagogique en tant qu’objet publié. Il est ainsi montré que la pratique des exercices est déjà bien rodée à l’époque et que les exercices rencontrés sont assez proches de ce que nous connaissons encore aujourd’hui.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".