Le regard français sur le phénomène eurasien en indochine française à travers les sources littéraires (1858-1954)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’usage aujourd’hui generalise des mots Metis et Eurasien les a quelque peu banalises. Longtemps, pourtant, ils ont ete teintes de mepris et / ou de mefiance. L’auteur a souhaite rappeler les portraits qu’en a fait, tout au long de la colonisation de l’Indochine, la litterature francaise. On est surpris, a la lecture de ces romans, parfois de bonne facture, parfois mediocres, par une quasi permanence : L’Eurasien, qui aurait du etre une passerelle entre deux mondes, est le plus souvent depeint comme melant les tares des deux « races » (le mot est alors d’usage courant). Souvent, tiraille, dechire entre ces deux « races » et entre deux societes (la colonisatrice et la colonisee), le metis, dans la litterature « indochinoise » francaise, connait le malheur. Parfois meme la mort. Une fois de plus, il est prouve que la litterature est autre chose qu’un passe-temps. Elle peut, si elle est lue de facon historique, apporter bien des enseignements sur les societes humaines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".