Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper retraces, in an ethno-historical perspective, the genesis of the oriented, elliptic, simplistic and reductive representation of the Eskimos in the Diderot & d’Alembert’s Encyclopaedia. Adopting an inter-disciplinary approach (historical, anthropological and textual, as well), the paper wonders upon the mechanisms which have governed the construction of the Eskimos’ image, and deciphers them considering the philosophical challenges and the ideological conditioning of the Century of Lights. The Eskimos’ image conveyed by the Encyclopaedia emphasizes their bestiality and primitivism, to stick them as the prototype of the savagery, the personification of a degenerated and shy humanity of the borders. The image of the Inuit - stereotyped, preformed and caricatured - is built through bias, omissions, and generalizations. It is intended to present them as fully antonymic to civilisation. In the Diderot and Chevalier de Jaucourt’s writing, the fierce and anthropophagic Inuit are the archetypal symbol of an extreme and terrifying anthropological difference which is the outcome of a geographical and climatic determinism. Far away the highly idealized and aesthetically-oriented image of the Good Savage, the Eskimos show-up in the writing of the Century of Lights‟ scholars a borderline humanity, deprived of any culture mark, but, nevertheless belonging to the human family.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".