MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170511421 · doi:10.4000/ahrf.155

L’orientalisme en Inde au tournant du XIXe siècle : La réponse du mondialisme britannique à l’universalisme de la Révolution française

2000· article· fr· W2170511421 on OpenAlexaff
Kapil Raj

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales historiques de la Révolution française · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsInstitut d'Histoire de l'Amérique Française
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La France révolutionnaire menace la Grande-Bretagne et son empire par la force de ses idéaux égalitaires et universalistes autant que par sa force militaire. Pour arrêter la propagation des « principes erronés » de la Révolution française parmi ses employés britanniques et pour leur inculquer les « vrais principes de la religion et du gouvernement », la Compagnie des Indes fonde en 1800 le Fort William College à Calcutta. Pendant trois ans, les futures recrues de la Compagnie y apprendront la science et la littérature européennes, mais aussi des langues, sciences et philosophies de l’Inde et sa structure sociale stratifiée. Leurs professeurs sont non seulement des orientalistes britanniques, mais également des savants indiens. Quand, en 1806, une partie du College est rapatriée en Angleterre, quelques-uns de ces derniers l’accompagnent pour enseigner aux côtés de savants britanniques comme Thomas Malthus. Loin d’être isolée, cette expérience participe d’un mouvement plus général en Angleterre, où scientifiques et réformateurs s’allient pour propager un modèle social fondé sur l’inégalité du monde en contrepoint des idéaux universalistes de la Révolution française.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.018
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales historiques de la Révolution françaiseSame topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207