MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246311569 · doi:10.3138/cras-s034-01-03

Banditisme social, m~~moire collective et histoire : le r~~le de Jesse James dans la cr~~ation de sa propre l~~gende

2004· article· fr· W4246311569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francis Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En 1939, le film Jesse James, dans lequel Tyrone Power incarne le c~~l~~- bre hors-la-loi, connaissait un succ~~s foudroyant au box-office1. Dans ce film, Henry King, r~~alisateur, repr~~sente Jesse James comme un jeune homme s'~~tant tourn~~ vers le crime pour venger le meurtre de sa m~~re commis par des agents de compagnies ferroviaires. Aid~~ par son fr~~re Frank (Henry Fonda), Jesse se venge et s'attaque ~~ la corruption engendr~~e par le progr~~s dont le train est la repr~~senta- tion la plus n~~faste. Cependant, le banditisme de Jesse devient avec le temps une activit~~ pratiqu~~e pour le profit plut~~t que pour le bien de la communaut~~. Notamment, King d~~montre cette transition par un changement d'attitude de Jesse quand au commandement de sa bande (la bande James-Younger), passant de leader ~~ ~~ dictateur ~~. Lorsque qu'il affirme ~~ son fr~~re qu'il peut gravir les marches du Capitole s'il le d~~sire, ce dernier le replace juste ~~ temps dans le droit chemin. Malgr~~ le retour au banditisme social, la bande est d~~faite ~~ Northfield. Jesse est subs~~quemment tu~~ par Robert Ford alors qu'il vient de promettre ~~ son ~~pouse qu'il va se ranger.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.023
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207