Tableaux croisés chez Mercier et Rutlidge le peuple de Paris et le plébéien anglais
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Raymonde Monnier, Cross-Reading Mercier and Rutlidge : the Parisian « Peuple » and the English « Plebeian » This semantic analysis of the words peuple and plebeian is a twofold comparative exercise : in parallel matrices of the people of Paris and London, Louis Sébastien Mercier and Jean- Jacques Rutlidge, two authors of differing stature and fame, provide contrasting representations of the people of the two capital cities at the close of the old regime. In a chapter of the Tableau de Paris, the semantically unequal parallel between the citizens of London and Paris opposes the English plebeian with the Parisian peuple, a multitude doomed to ignorance and passivity. Rutlidge in Le Babillard intercepts the glances and words exchanged by two Travellers visiting London and Paris in order to dispel prejudice in respect of the two cities. The Letter of the French Traveller, which Mercier took as his source, aims at undermining the idea of English ferocity : by highlighting the advantages of political freedom, he commends the moderation and enlightened patriotism of the people of London. As the age of revolution dawns, the two authors try to construct, each in his own way crossing words and arguments, a reassuring image of the republic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".