Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attempting to present eight centuries of Breton history in one article is of course a daunting task and my aim here is simply to provide an outline highlighting the major trends and events that will enable the reader seeking a historical introduction to better understand Breton history and culture. Covering such a long span of time necessarily implies selecting only the most salient historical events and aspects of Brittany’s cultural development. Until the Revolution of 1789, there were nine Catholic dioceses in Brittany and Breton history inscribed itself within the administrative framework of the Church. In three of these Breton dioceses (Léon, Trégor, Cornouaille) Breton was by far the dominant language; in the dioceses of Saint-Brieuc and Vannes people spoke Breton and French or Gallo (a romance language with Latin roots), while in those of Nantes and Dol, Gallo or French were spoken, with Breton used in an enclave situated in the area around Guérande. The diocese of Dol was particular in that its possessions were disseminated throughout Brittany and as far as the Norman border. This reflects the donations it had received from the Breton aristocracy. The use of the Breton language varied through the centuries, with the Breton-speaking areas receding westwards as time went by. The impact that this had on Breton history should not be underestimated: Brittany shares this linguistic plurality with other regions or states like Belgium, Switzerland or Canada and the Celtic countries. The linguistic status of Breton is considerably different though since it is not officially recognised by the French government. This should be kept in mind when considering the nature of Breton cultural and political identities until the present day.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".