MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223985563 · doi:10.4000/insitu.35310

De Paul Abadie à Yves-Marie Froidevaux

2022· article· fr· W4223985563 on OpenAlexaff
Kerstin Wittmann-Englert

Bibliographic record

VenueIn Situ · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heritage
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le grand nombre de coupoles et de clochetons qui animent le paysage des toits de la cathédrale Saint-Front de Périgueux impressionne. Cette silhouette est due à l’architecte Paul Abadie qui a travaillé une trentaine d’années, de 1852 à 1883, sur la cathédrale. Cependant, ce n’est pas son action, mais celle des jeunes étudiantes et étudiants de l’Atelier pratique de l’École des Beaux-Arts, dans la seconde moitié du xxe siècle, qui est au centre du présent article. Nous avons pu retrouver quelques-uns de ces artistes – Jean-Claude Athané, Geneviève Bourdet et Philippe Scrive notamment –, qui avaient à l’époque œuvré à Périgueux. Cette histoire évoquant une courte phase de création artistique dans la conservation du patrimoine est étroitement liée à la personne de Yves-Marie Froidevaux. En tant qu’architecte en chef des monuments historiques, celui-ci est, à partir de 1939, responsable des bâtiments classés du département de la Dordogne et donc, entre autres, de Saint-Front de Périgueux, jusqu’à sa nomination au rang d’inspecteur général des monuments historiques en 1974. Cette brève incursion dans le contemporain peut désormais être admirée de près grâce aux passerelles aménagées au cours de l’été 2019 sur le toit qui conduisent jusqu’à deux des trois clochetons modernes auxquels est consacrée cette contribution.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.006

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIn SituSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207