Surveiller les animaux et contrôler les citoyens, ou comment policer les bêtes pour mieux hiérarchiser les humains entre 1789 et 1799…
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article propose une étude inédite de la police des animaux dans Paris à partir des procès-verbaux des commissaires des sections déposés aux Archives de la Préfecture de Paris. L’enquête révèle l’omniprésence des animaux dans la capitale et les soucis qu’ils causent aux représentants de l’ordre. Source d’accidents, au cœur des interrogations sur l’amélioration de la salubrité publique, objets de commerce lorsqu’ils sont transformés en viande de boucherie, les animaux représentent aussi des enjeux politiques. La façon dont les hommes les traitent devient un sujet d’inquiétude également car elle exprime un rapport à l’inférieur, que le spectacle urbain peut rapidement transformer en objet de tensions sociales. Ordre et santé publics, spectacles républicains, régulation du commerce, protection des plus faibles, constituent autant de questions que la police des animaux révèle, dans le quotidien du policier au service du Nouveau Régime.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".