Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si la profession d’architecte au XIXe siècle est de mieux en mieux connue, nombre de thématiques transversales restent à défricher afin de compléter les études de parcours individuels et les monographies: c’est l’ambition de ce recueil qui s’intéresse à la dimension collective de cette profession. L’institutionnalisation de la pratique constructive, la création d’associations professionnelles, les activités de promotion, le développement de l’édition d’architecture, l’organisation du travail et le fonctionnement des bureaux sont autant de thèmes traités à partir d’exemples non seulement suisses, mais également français et allemands. Ces deux pays ne sont pas uniquement des points de comparaison: les architectes suisses s’y forment et y travaillent souvent un temps. Leurs écoles d’architecture et leurs pratiques professionnelles constituent donc des modèles, non seulement pour les questions esthétiques mais aussi organisationnelles.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.021 |
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".