The Comminges County from the 10
Bibliographic record
Abstract
\nFrom the 10th to the 15th centuries, the counts of Comminges developed their important domain and resisted the ambitions of their powerful neighbors. Alliances, treaties, marriages, wars, everything has been good to preserve their goods. These counts played happily with their personalities, their strengths, their weaknesses, their malice. They supported the economic and social development. The population gradually migrated from the mountains to the plain, first with the help of the Church and the creation of the “sauvetés”. Then the liberality of the counts allowed the construction of numerous “bastides” in the 13th century. The county families provided the majority of the Commingeois bishops and reinforced the importance of the Secular Church. By their permanent support to the Regular Church, they favored the establishment of large monastic and templar domains, the development of as much farming land. The progressive close up with the raimondine city of Toulouse, placed the County under his protection after the crusade by the Albigensians in 1218. The war against the English, the devastations of the Black prince in 1355 opened the last page of this story, accompanied by calamities that left in 1453 a bloodless Comminges in the hands of the King of France.\n
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.004 |
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".