The representation of St Batholomew's Day massacre : "A chronicle of the reign of Charles IX" by Mérimée, "About Catherine de Médicis" by Balzac, "Queen Margot" by Dumas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dès le lendemain de la Saint-Barthélemy, chacun, selon sa foi et ses convictions, proposait une interprétation et enrichissait la légende. A chaque époque, le dossier était ré-ouvert donnant lieu à de nouvelles controverses. Les écrivains du XIXe siècle se sont principalement intéressés au XVe siècle et à la Saint-Barthélemy parce la nation était de nouveau en proie à des événements sanglants. En effet, ces deux siècles se caractérisent par une grande instabilité politique, des guerres intestines, des menaces venues de 1'étranger et des polémiques religieuses. Les auteurs ont interprété les événements et les situations de cette période en fonction de préoccupations politiques et sociales qui leur étaient contemporaines. Cette étude montre que le massacre, perpétré pour des motifs religieux et politiques, fut traité différemment selon les auteurs et les époques.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".