MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166962562 · doi:10.4000/cerri.3204

Un riche fonds documentaire à découvrir et à exploiterFonds du Grand Séminaire à la Bibliothèque Universitaire de Limoges

2021· article· fr· W3166962562 on OpenAlex
Hélène Layotte

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

VenueCahiers d’études du religieux · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsBibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La bibliothèque universitaire de Limoges conserve un fonds dit du Grand Séminaire qui est un dépôt de l’Evêché de Limoges. Son principal attrait pour nos lecteurs réside dans le fait qu’ils retracent l’histoire religieuse du diocèse du XVIe siècle à la première moitié du XXe siècle. Comme ils sont d’origine et de provenance diverses, parler des fonds ecclésiastiques du Limousin serait plus exact : on y trouve des ouvrages de prêtres bibliophiles, d’institutions religieuses, de l’ancien grand ...

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)0.000
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 score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.214 · 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