MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367159000 · doi:10.7202/1079365ar

Le rôle des spécialistes dans l’armée inca : un sujet à reconsidérer

2021· article· fr· W4367159000 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Cultures and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis la conquête du Pérou par les Espagnols au XVIe siècle, de nombreuses études portant sur l’empire inca ont été réalisées. Pourtant peu de ces études traitent de l’armée et des institutions militaires. La plupart des chercheurs modernes s’étant penchés sur le sujet considèrent que l’armée inca était en majeure partie composée de paysans qui n’étaient pas spécialisés dans le métier des armes. Le rôle de véritables spécialistes, soldats professionnels, semble donc négligeable. Il est pourtant fort étonnant qu’une société étatique ayant constitué un empire de conquête permanent n’ait pas développé une plus grande spécialisation militaire. En fait, un examen attentif des sources ethnohistoriques indique clairement qu’on a jusqu’à présent sous-estimé le rôle des spécialistes dans l’armée inca. Cet article a donc pour but de démontrer l’existence et l’importance de cette spécialisation militaire.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.236 · 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