La déviance sociale à Londres vue par une enquêtrice socialiste française : Flora Tristan et les Promenades dans Londres (1840)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As early as the Restoration and even more still during the July Monarchy, many French social investigators chose to study England. They came from all social backgrounds and political parties and analysed the most industrialised country in Europe as the laboratory of the future. They focused on social contrasts and on the miserable living and working conditions of the proletariat. One may therefore wonder where Flora Tristan’s originality lay when she undertook to write about these deviancies. This question is all the more interesting as she was a self-taught writer, her childhood as an orphan having provided her with but a rudimentary education. Do her lack of culture and the difficulty she felt in dealing with her topic objectively impair the quality of the opinions she expressed in her book ? The huge success of London Walks among Socialist groups and the working classes proves the opposite and stresses the novelty of her analyses. Her female condition did not restrict the scope of her understanding of what she examined and her sense of being herself an outcast enabled her to provide an insider’s view of the conditions of the people she came in contact with.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".