MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322631407 · doi:10.4000/contextes.10991

Compte rendu de Jon Mee et Matthew Sangster (dir.), Institutions of Literature, 1700–1900. The Development of Literary Culture and Production

2023· article· en· W4322631407 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Glinoer

Bibliographic record

VenueContextes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Art and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Issu de séminaires tenus dans les universités de Glasgow et de York, ce collectif de chercheuses et de chercheurs britanniques et états-uniens porte sur plusieurs « institutions » fondées aux xviiie et xixe siècles et sur le rôle qu’elles ont eu dans la pratique et la définition de la culture littéraire anglaise. Hélas, pour le dire d’emblée, cet ouvrage illustre malgré lui les dommages intellectuels causés par la trop grande étanchéité des frontières entre les nations dans le domaine des ét...

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.012
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContextesSame topicHistorical Art and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207