Bibliographic record
Abstract
A la suite de l’ouvrage collectif publié par Marcel Detienne (1990), nous avons repris le thème des tracés de fondation, en particulier celui de la Rome antique, inaugurée par Romulus selon un rituel de fondation (Plutarque). C’est pour nous l’occasion de reprendre nos analyses des lieux et de les développer à partir d’une thématisation selon notre approche sémiotique au moyen d’une schématisation logico-topologique appelée templum. C’est à travers la notion de mythogramme que nous avons différencié cette approche : structure d’orientation d’un espace, actantialité associée à des types de rituel, planification d’un ordre urbain qui se retrouvera tout au long de l’histoire romaine. Ces trois schématisations corrélées – auxquelles il faudrait associer, de façon sous-jacente, la logique d’établissement des lieux développée dans notre livre précédent (2013) – permettent de caractériser l’idée d’une forme urbaine typique dans sa récurrence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".