Histoire globale, histoire internationale, histoire mondiale : Le débat aux États-Unis, en Chine et en Allemagne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif principal de l’article est de décrire les traits saillants de l’intérêt actuel pour l’histoire globale et les raisons de la nouvelle prévalence du terme. Dans un premier temps, il revient brièvement sur les traditions antérieures de l’histoire mondiale et de l’histoire internationale. Dans un second temps, il examine certaines difficultés et contraintes qui se posent aux historiens et sans doute leur rendent moins facile la tâche de mener leurs recherches au niveau global qu’aux représentants de beaucoup d’autres disciplines universitaires. En résumé il esquisse un certain nombre de différences régionales qui marquent les débats sur l’histoire globale, en se fondant principalement sur l’exemple de l’Allemagne, des États-Unis et de la grande Chine, qui comprend la République populaire de Chine, Taiwan et Hong Kong.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".