MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409477153 · doi:10.7202/1117431ar

La double bataille du Mans et le corps de l’ennemi

2024· article· fr· W4409477153 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Domitille Mignot-Floure

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropologie et Sociétés · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En 2009, les archéologues mirent au jour 154 squelettes datés de la bataille et du massacre du Mans (Sarthe) des 12 et 13 décembre 1793 lors de la première guerre de Vendée. En 2016, à la suite du dépôt du rapport de fouilles, une polémique mémorielle prit forme dans l’ouest de la France, réactivant une opposition centenaire entre les ennemis d’antan : les Républicains et les Vendéens. À partir d’une enquête ethnographique et suivant une démarche relevant de l’anthropologie historique, il s’agira de montrer comment et pourquoi une association républicaine a oeuvré pendant plusieurs mois en contestant une inhumation des ossements demandée par les associations mémorielles vendéennes et appuyée par les réseaux politiques de la droite conservatrice. Considérant que les restes humains demeuraient exclusivement du mobilier archéologique, la Société des amis de la Révolution française refusa d’employer le terme massacre et insista pour que les ossements demeurent dans un dépôt archéologique. En s’inscrivant dans l’héritage de la pensée révolutionnaire et du bicentenaire de la Révolution française (1989), l’association républicaine fit de son engagement une lutte contre l’instrumentalisation de l’histoire et des ossements par la droite et l’extrême droite.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropologie et Sociétés→Same topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis→French-language works237,207→