MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306878773 · doi:10.57086/sources.393

Pierre II de Challes, capitaine armagnac (1409-1436). Renseignement, désinformation et pillage durant la guerre civile

2014· article· fr· W4306878773 on OpenAlexaff
Benoît Léthenet

Bibliographic record

VenueSource(s) – Arts Civilisation et Histoire de l’Europe · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré de Santé et Services Sociaux de Chaudière-Appalache
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Durant la guerre civile qui oppose Armagnacs et Bourguignons (1407-1435), les princes se déchirent. En quoi le destin d’un capitaine de compagnie, Pierre II de Challes, illustre cette opposition ? Cet article esquissera, d’abord, le profil de Pierre ii et de sa famille. Il donnera un aperçu de la fidélité des seigneurs de Challes, envers les sires de Beaujeu et les ducs de Bourbon, contre les ducs de Savoie. Il brossera également le tableau de la composition de sa compagnie. Il abordera, dans un second temps, le rôle des transfuges et du renseignement dont use Pierre II au profit des Armagnacs. Il se penchera sur un cas de désinformation dont il est lui-même victime. Un exemple qui montre que les camps en lutte savent alerter l’opinion afin de discréditer leurs adversaires. Enfin, il présentera l’efficacité de Pierre II, rompu aux pillages dans le Mâconnais, ainsi que les bénéfices qu’il tire de ses activités guerrières. Cependant, l’opposition des princes le touche également. En 1431, ses biens sont pillés par son concurrent et adversaire : François de La Palud.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.007

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 head0.211
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSource(s) – Arts Civilisation et Histoire de l’EuropeSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207