Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book about cultural memory, collective forgetting, and war originated in a moment of confessed ignorance.An accident of wordplay at a conference -see chapter 2 -led me out of my comfort zone of Parisian modernity, product placement, fashion, and Second Empire authors to a nineteenth-century French war on the Crimean Peninsula that I knew virtually nothing about.Baudelaire, Flaubert, Gautier, Sand, and company had little to tell me about this war.I started looking elsewhere, consulting along the way every friend and colleague I knew in French history, literature, art, and cultural studies.I am grateful to them all for their insight, their scholarly references, their encouragement, and their patience.Thank you especially to members of the Nineteenth-Century French Studies Association, who have given me over the years the opportunity to test-drive ideas about the Crimean War in formal sessions as well as informal bars.It was at meetings of the association that I invariably got the best questions, the best answers, and the best youshould-look-ats.I owe a particular debt of gratitude to Michel Pierssens and the late Jean-Jacques Lefrère, who, without knowing it, sparked the wordplay at the Colloque des Invalides that led to this book.A further debt of gratitude goes to Françoise Gaillard and Catherine Soussloff, who convinced me to follow that spark and see where it would lead me.Their readings of early drafts of this book and their advice, like their friendship, were invaluable.Much of this book was written during a pandemic that regrettably limited access to libraries and archives in Paris but happily allowed me to give talks in New Haven, London, and Paris with marvellous colleagues but without jetlag.The feedback and lively discussions were all the more precious at that time of social isolation "in the trenches," as it were.Thank you to Maurice Samuels, Patrick Bray, and Cary Hollinshead-Strick for making this possible.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".