Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans ce mémoire, il s’agit de développer et d’appliquer une méthode qui peut saisir le\nmanuel scolaire comme objet de l’analyse historique et de l’analyse du discours. La méthode cible le livre seulement et combine des outils littéraires et historiques, quantitatifs et qualitatifs, en essayant de tenir compte de l’expérience du livre.\nL’analyse porte sur la narration de la guerre de Corée dans les manuels de six pays\n(Allemagne RDA et RFA, la Chine RPC, les États-Unis, le Chili et l’Argentine) de deux\nmoments différents (1962 et 1992). La guerre de Corée a été un événement majeur de\nla Guerre froide entre les mondes capitalistes et communistes et a contribué à la course aux armements nucléaires. Elle a installé le modèle de la guerre par procuration comme solution de conflits entre les deux idéologies.\nUne comparaison large d’un événement précis peut nous donner des indications sur\nle fonctionnement des différents niveaux de la mémoire d’une société et expliquer des\néléments du fonctionnement des cycles historiographiques.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.008 |
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".