MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113495691 · doi:10.4000/memini.1787

PolimaWiki : un Wiki sémantique pour l’analyse de listes au Moyen Âge, limites et apports

2020· article· fr· W3113495691 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pierre Chastang

Bibliographic record

VenueMemini · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis une trentaine d’années, la réflexion sur les usages de l’écriture est devenue l’une des voies d’accès privilégiées à la compréhension des sociétés médiévales. La liste est apparue comme l’une des formes caractéristiques d’un usage multiforme de l’écriture dont la finalité est à la fois la connaissance et l’action. Le projet Polima, qui associait, dans une démarche scientifique pluridisciplinaire, histoire, philologie, linguistique, littérature, sociologie, anthropologie et psychologie ...

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.019
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.007

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeminiSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207