Le retour de l’histoire universelle : une façon de changer le rapport au conflit?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À l’heure de la mondialisation, des chercheurs comme David Christian et Dipesh Chakrabarty effectuent le lien entre histoire et conflits et proposent un retour à une histoire universelle et profonde qui nous permettrait de mieux comprendre l’univers et la place de l’humanité dans celui-ci en donnant une plus grande cohérence à la discipline. En faisant l’histoire de ce qui nous est commun, il serait alors possible de développer une certaine identité mondiale et de véritablement se considérer comme « l’humanité ». Cet article propose donc d’aborder le sujet de l’histoire universelle comme piste de compréhension des grands conflits de notre époque, qui sont de plus en plus liés à l’environnement, à l’accès aux ressources ainsi qu’à la gestion de la crise des changements climatiques et occasionnent de profondes remises en question.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".