MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403266744 · doi:10.4000/12dvw

La conservation préventive comme facteur de reconnaissance d’une collection

2011· article· fr· W4403266744 on OpenAlexaff
Laetitia Antonini

Bibliographic record

VenueSpotlight · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicConservation Techniques and Studies
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La collection de moulages du musée des Monuments français est encore à la recherche d’un consensus sur les moyens à consacrer à sa conservation. Or, pour ce type de collections « marginales », la manière dont elles sont appréhendées est un élément essentiel pour la mise en œuvre de la conservation préventive. L’état de la documentation et des conditions de stockage, sont à l’origine de la qualité du regard porté sur les moulages, et à ce titre se répercutent dans les modalités de réalisation des prêts. Ainsi, au-delà des améliorations objectives qu’elle apporte, la conservation préventive apparaît comme un outil contribuant à la reconnaissance d’une collection muséale et incitant à sa valorisation et à sa diffusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpotlightSame topicConservation Techniques and StudiesFrench-language works237,207