Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the birth and growth of criminal anthropology in France. French physicians and anthropologists took an interest in criminals and theorized their behaviors before the famous Italian positivist school. French theorizing in this area developped in the early beginnning of the XIXth century with the concept of Esquirol's "monomanie homicide" and phrenology, the later gaining wide acceptance under the July Monarchy. Paul Rroca, leader of anthropology in France, was interested incidentally in the pathology of crime but it is Lombroso's Uomo delin-quente, which through the reactions it provoked, led to the development of this type of studies in France. In opposition to Lombroso, the forensic physician Lacassagne created in Lyon in 1885 a review of criminal anthropology which will continue to appear until 1915. His school of "Milieu social", took a very different viewpoint from Durkheimian sociology. In fact, Lacassagne wasn't so far from Lombroso than he said, and his approach was also in a medical frame. Morel's theory of degeneration deserves mention for the importance it gained at the end of the century with Magnan, a psychiatrist who "regenerated" the concept of "monomanie homicide" in an "impulsion morbide". This presentation of the most important trends of criminal anthropology in France distinguishes two uses of the terms "criminal anthropology" and "criminology" in the past and today. An attempt is also made to unterstand how the medicalization of deviance was possible and it's historical conditions of emergence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".