MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100187078 · doi:10.5206/mfds-ecfw.v5i1.11149

Modalités du paysage écrit entre Adam Smith et Rousseau

2020· article· fr· W3100187078 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Servanne Woodward

Bibliographic record

VenueLe Monde français du dix-huitième siècle · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtSublimeArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deux types de descriptions de paysage écrits sont étudiés ici : le paysage-jardin, ou le paysage « riant », accueillant, et le paysage impénétrable. Ce dernier sort de l’économie-politique alors que le premier y reporte. L’un fait partie de la productivité et de la survie, l’autre est du domaine de la prison, de l’impasse ou de la perte (prison ou désert). Tous deux semblent propices à la promenade, et à l’organisation corporelle et imaginative du promeneur. Nous serions tentés de conclure qu’il s’agit d’une autre manière d’exprimer le beau versus le sublime.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLe Monde français du dix-huitième siècleSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207