Jean-Marc Schiappa (Dir.), Pour la défense de la Révolution française 1789-2009 | Jean-Luc Chappey, Bernard Gainot, Guillaume Mazeau, Frédéric Régent, Pierre Serna, Pourquoi faire la Révolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1Ces deux ouvrages collectifs visent le même objectif qui est nettement affirmé par les maîtres d'œuvre.Il s'agit de démontrer que la Révolution française est autre chose qu'une prise de pouvoir sans lendemain obtenue par des foules violentes plus portées au vandalisme qu'à la réflexion politique, et que, avec des limites et des contradictions, ses réformes étaient porteuses de modernité au sens de promotion de la personne humaine.En tant que tel, le ton des auteurs est militant : ils veulent répondre aux publications, livres, articles, films, émissions télévisuelles, assez nombreux depuis le bicentenaire de 1789 qui ont dressé une présentation systématiquement péjorative de la décennie révolutionnaire.Ils font donc le point à propos des grandes questions Jean-Marc Schiappa (Dir.),Pour la défense de la Révolution française 1789-20...
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.012 |
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".