Comparing Family Memories in France and Germany: The Production of History(ies) Within and Through Kin Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is based on a Franco-German collective research project on family memories that has been conducted at the Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS) of Paris over the past five years by a dozen of young German and French researchers and coordinated by the two authors. Based on an empirical study of eight family monographs, method inspired by the anthropology of kin relations, this article traces the process that has led us from the analysis of family memories toward the analysis of the production of history(ies) within and through kin groups. It is the Franco-German comparison, but also the necessity to interrogate the concepts of family and history/memory which has led us to propose an original approach of family memories, ultimately leading to a dissatisfaction with the conceptualization we started with. The term “family memories” suggests simultaneously the existence of a group (the family), common souvenirs (collective memories), and underlines their difference to history (produced by professionals). This triple definition finally reveals being little useful for this research, since we have rather tried to investigate ways in which individuals and groups, linked through relations of kinship, produce histories through reappropriations of stories constructed and transmitted within several institutions. It is the practices of kin relations, common or contradictory discourses, communicated and linked through emotions, which will produce these (hi-)stories. These multidimensional interactions and configurations contribute in turn to the production of history.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".