Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adler Laure, Les Premières journalistes : 1830-1850, à l’aube du féminisme, Paris, Payot, 1979. Anselmini Julie et Diaz Brigitte (dir.), Elseneur, n° 28 : L’« anti-critique » des écrivains au XIXe siècle, Caen, PUC, 2013. Anselmini Julie, L’Écrivain-critique au XIXe siècle : Dumas, Gautier, Barbey d’Aurevilly, Presses universitaires de Liège, coll. « Situations », 2022. Bara Olivier & PlantÉ Christine (dir.), George Sand critique. Une autorité paradoxale, Saint-Étienne, Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne, 2011. Barette (Roussel-Richard), Lucie, Les écrivaines-journalistes sous la monarchie de Juillet : la presse au service d’une reconnaissance littéraire, Thèse de doctorat, Caen, 2018. Barette Lucie, Corset de Papier – Une histoire de la presse féminine, Éditions Divergences, Paris, 2022. Bellet Roger, Autour de Louise Colet : femmes de lettres au XIXe siècle, Lyon, Presses universitaires de Lyon, 1982 Bertand-Jennings Chantal (dir.), Masculin/Féminin : le XIXe siècle à l’épreuve du genre, Toronto, Centre d’études du XIXe siècle Joseph Sablé, 1999. Blandin Claire, Eck Hélène et l’Institut Française de la Presse, La Vie des femmes : la presse féminine aux XIXe et XXe siècles, Paris, Éd. Panthéon-Assas, 2010. Brunereau Jeanne, Presse féminine et critique littéraire de 1800 à 1830 : leurs rapports avec l’histoire des femmes, Paris, EVE et son espace créatif, 2000. Damian-Gaillard Béatrice, Frisque Cégolène, Saitta Eugénie, Le journalisme au féminin. Assignation
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.498 | 0.262 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".