MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415432688 · doi:10.7202/1120552ar

La citation interdite. Usages du proverbe à l’âge classique (1660-1700)

2025· article· fr· W4415432688 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes françaises · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)Context (archaeology)Linguistic typology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans la seconde moitié du xvii e siècle, la familiarité du public mondain avec la langue proverbiale est telle qu’elle autorise un usage plus discret que la citation, celui de l’allusion, dont l’agrément est proportionnel à la discrétion. Cette mise en oeuvre du proverbe n’a pas pour seule ambition le plaisir de la connivence ( L’école des femmes ) : elle sert un art de conter plusieurs histoires à la fois ( La princesse de Clèves ), et devient même sous la plume des Modernes un argument en faveur de la langue française ( Le petit chaperon rouge ). Le jeu toutefois n’est pas sans risque.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0110.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.007

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes françaisesSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207