Monseigneur Grente sous l'Occupation : un évêque maréchaliste ou pétainiste ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What happened in the bishop’s palace of Le Mans during the Occupation? Actually, we know not many the comings and goings of the bishop of Le Mans during this period and the historiography is incomplete about this topic. The main goal of our research is to identify the evolution of the opinion of his Eminence Grente during these years because if some historians are telling anecdotes about him or describe this bishop as a laudator of the Marshal Pétain, his personal archives are never been used to highlight these grey areas. So, we intend to use a new approach interrogating this subject with his personal archives, particularly his diary and letters, combined with the analysis of a part of the archives of the prefecture conserved at the Archives départementales de la Sarthe, a mean to revaluate and precise research of our predecessors.We organized our reflexion on two main lines of research. The first one concerned the link’s nature between his Eminence Grente and the Marshal Pétain. In itself, why did the bishop join the new head of state during the summer 1940? Does he remain faithful to the Marshal Pétain to his process? Secondly, we want to identify the judgement of the bishop of Le Mans about the policy of the government defended by Pierre Laval and the admiral Darlan, especially identifying the breaks which defined this relation. Our reflexion is another way to interrogate the comportment of this bishop: was he indifferent looking at the government’s policy? did he protest as some of their brothers? what was their relations? did he engage to rescue people who was threatened to be arrested? Finally, questioning these problematics, we want to determine the role who played his Eminence Grente in his diocese and what was his trajectory compared to those of his brothers of the episcopacy.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".