MARTIN S. STAUM. Nature and Nurture in French Social Sciences, 1859-1914 and Beyond.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1859, the year of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, also marked the founding of anthropological societies in London and Paris. “Anthropology” meant physical anthropology, focusing often on human measurement (anthropometry) and especially on skull data (craniometry). The founders of the London and Paris societies knew nothing yet of evolution by natural selection, and their simultaneous origins had more to do with racialized discourses of slavery in the United States than with nonhuman biology in England. Compounding the coincidence, an ethnographic society also was established in France in 1859. Like its English analogue, of much earlier provenance, the Société d'ethnographie américaine et orientale was more religiously oriented and much less vehemently racist than the anthropological societies. Darwin himself, an agnostic by this time, was the descendant of strong anti-slavery campaigners, and he identified with the English ethnographers rather than the anthropologists. We see that the role of biology in these human sciences was not entirely straightforward. For the French anthropologists, as Martin S. Staum makes clear, Darwin was a peripheral figure, while Herbert Spencer provided a key inspiration and resource for the rest of the nineteenth century.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
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".