MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152842464 · doi:10.7202/015734ar

He Is Depending on You: Militarism, Martyrdom, and the Appeal to Manliness in the Case of France’s ‘Croix de Feu’, 1931-1940.

2007· article· en· W2152842464 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Geoff Read

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilitarismPoliticsAppealMasculinityConservatismCommunismAlliancePolitical scienceLawHistorySociologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the masculine discourse of the Croix de Feu, France’s largest political formation in the late 1930s, against the examples of the republican conservative parties – the Fédération Républicaine, the Alliance Démocratique, and the Parti Démocrate Populaire – as well the Socialist and Communist left. The author argues, based on the François de La Rocque papers, the movement’s newspaper, Le Flambeau, the archives of key political figures, as well as the other parties’ presses, that while the Croix de Feu’s preferred masculinity was similar to that found on the republican right in many regards, the movement, borrowing heavily from the masculinist aesthetic of the far-left, was engaged in the construction of a fascist “new man.” He is Depending on You, therefore, maintains that the Croix de Feu was typically fascist in its masculine discourse, synthesizing social conservatism with a radical élan. Since the Croix de Feu was undeniably popular, with roughly 1,000,000 adherents by the late-1930s, fascism and the fascist new man were by no means marginal phenomena in French politics, culture, and society as some have argued.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0380.025
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207