MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110443134 · doi:10.7202/1121889ar

Anges, massacres et hommes-poissons : variations poétiques anglo-normandes autour du voyage évangélisateur d’Augustin de Cantorbéry en Grande-Bretagne

2025· article· fr· W7110443134 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArborescences Revue d études françaises · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriod (music)Historical heritageHistoriography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article étudie les variations, chez Geoffroi Gaimar, Wace et frère Angier ( xii e - xiii e siècles), du récit d’un voyage de haute portée civilisationnelle : le périple entrepris par Augustin de Cantorbéry ( vi e - vii e siècles) pour convertir l’Angleterre au christianisme. Nous comparons pour la première fois ces trois versions inégalement connues, qui offrent des réécritures divergentes d’un même déplacement. L’exactitude historique y est souvent mise en tension par des enjeux politiques et idéologiques propres à l’espace géolinguistique anglo-normand, mais aussi par des impératifs esthétiques. Selon l’auteur et son contexte, la mission d’Augustin devient tantôt un récit de violences et de métamorphoses monstrueuses, tantôt un cheminement paisible où territoire, climat et indigènes anglais semblent attendre docilement leur intégration à une identité chrétienne et romaine. On montrera en outre que ces divergences relèvent aussi d’un conflit poétique, opposant plusieurs genres littéraires au sein de la jeune littérature française d’alors.

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)0.002
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 score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 venueArborescences Revue d études françaisesSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207