MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1534950667 · doi:10.7202/1002483ar

Traite des Noirs, traite des Blanches : même combat?

2011· article· fr· W1534950667 on OpenAlex
Jean-Michel Chaumont, Anne-Laure Wibrin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de recherche sociologique · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article interroge la légitimité de l’usage du mot « traite » dans l’expression « traite des Blanches », devenue « traite des femmes et des enfants » en 1921 et « traite des êtres humains » en 1949. En effet, la traite négrière se caractérisait par deux traits absents dans les phénomènes qui y sont indûment assimilés : elle était légale (ce qui privait ses victimes de tout recours auprès des autorités) et elle était forcée du début à la fin du processus (capture, transport, vente et travail des esclaves). En l’absence de ces deux traits, c’est seulement par un abus de langage ou une déformation des faits que, depuis plus d'un siècle, l’on peut soutenir l’analogie. Les auteurs examinent en conclusion comment, pourquoi et avec quelles conséquences certains contemporains la soutiennent néanmoins.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.021
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.629
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.157 · 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