MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387080749 · doi:10.1093/ahr/rhad341

Julia M. Gossard. <i>Young Subjects: Children, State-Building, and Social Reform in the Eighteenth-Century French World</i>.

2023· article· en· W4387080749 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adrian O’Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)Social reformQueen (butterfly)HistoryArt historyMedia studiesSociologyEconomic historyClassicsPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Montesquieu, Charles Duclos, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and many others in the eighteenth-century French world wrote about the role that schools could or should play as incubators of civil society and apprenticeships for political life. They emphasized the value of instruction in the vernacular, the benefits of vocational training, the importance of teaching practical ethics, and the promise of allowing students some degree of collective self-governance. While the question of education gave rise to wide-ranging and sometimes contentious debates, most of the writers who participated in those debates shared a sense that childhood, and especially adolescence, offered an opportunity for children to be prepared for the political roles they would someday assume. Had they read Julia M. Gossard’s insightful new book, Young Subjects: Children, State-Building, and Social Reform in the Eighteenth-Century French World, these authors might have seen that children were already living political lives, not just as the objects of adults’ attention or instruction but as political actors and agents themselves.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.007

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207