Retour sur une « contribution » coloniale. Le succès des coureurs nord‑africains dans l’athlétisme français des années 1950
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article porte sur la réussite des coureurs algériens et marocains dans l’athlétisme francais durant les années 1950. Étudiant cette ⊫ contribution ⊻ coloniale sous l’angle des relations inégales mais à double sens s’établissant entre la métropole et la colonie, il s’agit de rendre compte des logiques et oppositions socioculturelles qui sont au principe, d’une part, de ces succes sportifs a priori improbables et, d’autre part, de l’évolution de l’athlétisme en France et en Afrique du Nord. Centré sur les conditions qui sous-tendent ces succes sportifs et sur les transformations qu’ils entraînent, et montrant comment, au sein d’un rapport de forces qui leur est massivement défavorable, les colonisés parviennent, en se l’appropriant, à transformer une pratique importée par les colons, le texte suggère que le cas de l’athlétisme est exemplaire pour montrer que la situation coloniale n’est qu’une variante extreme du perpétuel conflit entre cultures en compétition.
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 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".