MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248473109 · doi:10.3138/ecf.22.3.503

A Tale of Two Tactics: Laclos's Novel Approach to Military Crisis and Reform

2010· article· en· W4248473109 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julia Osman

Bibliographic record

VenueEighteenth-Century Fiction · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtilleryContext (archaeology)Period (music)UncannySiegeEthosLawSociologyHistoryLiteraturePolitical scienceAestheticsArtAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scholars have long recognized Les Liaisons Dangereuses as a document for social reform, declaring the need for more women's education and exposing moral corruption among French nobles. Scholars have also recognized Laclos's military background and his metaphoric language of war and alliances. This essay places Laclos's novel in the context of French military reform in the late eighteenth century and, in doing so, reveals new layers of social critique. As an artillery officer and critic of Vauban, he was deeply affected by this thirty-year period of debate among officers on how to improve the French army after the loss of the Seven Years' War. With this context in mind, the military language of Valmont and Merteuil, when interpreted literally, reveal Laclos's take on the reform period. Merteuil's methods of seduction bear an uncanny resemblance to the tactics of Frederick the Great, and Valmont's conquest of la présidente de Tourvel echoes Vaubanian siege-craft. With this perspective, the “war” between the two leads not to an odd ending without resolution, but the expected conclusion for these military debates and reforms. In Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Laclos reveals his perception of the military debates of the time and argues that any meaningful military reform requires societal changes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEighteenth-Century FictionSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207