Pourquoi l’économie monétaire arabe n’a pas débouché sur le capitalisme? Une perspective wébérienne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article discute des thèses wébériennes sur les causes de l’apparition du capitalisme uniquement en Occident et pas ailleurs. Au début, Max Weber a insisté sur l’interrelation entre la religion et la stratification sociale. Mais en plus de l’éthique prostestante qui a donné à ses adhérents une nouvelle perspective sur Dieu et sur la vie, Weber a mis de l’avant certains éléments qui ont contribué à la formation d’une pensée rationnelle et d’un comportement socio-économique rationnel. En dépit de sa grande expansion dans la période classique (VIIe-Xe siècle), l’économie monétaire arabe a commencé à s’effriter dès la deuxième moitié du Xe siècle, empêchant ainsi le développement du capitalisme au Machrek arabe. Pour sa part, Weber a essayé d’expliquer ce phénomène dans le cadre de son travail d’étude comparative sur les grandes religions du monde. Mais les thèses wébériennes concernant l’essor du capitalisme s’appliquent-elles adéquatement à l’évolution historique de cette région?
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".