Science anthropologique et racisme à l’époque de l’expansion coloniale : le cas du Grand dictionnaire universel du XIXe siècle de Pierre Larousse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although colonial expansion in the nineteenth century has usually been viewed in terms of "social imperialism", the contact with non-European peoples also resulted in the formulation of an anthropological science which translated inferiority in technical skills and material possessions into racial terms. Such theories were used to justify colonialism, especially the subjugation of "inferior" races. On the home front, they also provided a framework for depicting class structures. A study of Le Grand Dictionnaire of Pierre Larousse, a vast compendium of left republican beliefs, illustrates these links between anthropological science, racist notions, progress, and imperialism, while at the same time bringing out the tensions between the ideals of progress and perfectability. By analyzing the ideological assumptions laying behind many of the articles in this influential Dictionnaire, the author demonstrates how various anthropological concepts influenced French thought over a wide spectrum of issues. He also draws parallels between French ideas on anthropology, race, imperialism, and social reform, and similar currents of thought in the Anglo-Saxon world.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".