From <i>Zouaves Pontificaux</i> to the <i>Volontaires de l'Ouest</i>: Catholic Volunteers and the French Nation, 1860–1910
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the French papal zouaves, volunteers who fought for the defence of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope in the decade 1860–1870, and their successors, the irregular Volunteers of the West. The latter was a volunteer force formed around the returning zouaves in the context of the 1870–71 Franco-Prussian war. It explores Catholic discourse on the zouaves and the Volontaires between 1860 and 1910, comparing the defenders of Rome with the defenders of France. The concern is to understand how service in the Franco-Prussian war impacted upon Catholic interpretations of the zouaves. In particular, their heroic if suicidal charge in the battle of Loigny under the banner of the Sacred Heart aligned them with this devotion, that flourished in 1870–71 and would culminate in the Sacré-Cœur de Montmartre. The Volontaires also offered political arguments about the relationship between patriotism and Catholic convictions, deployed in the context of debates about French regeneration. Yet in terms of ideas of expiation, national history and counter-revolution the discourse on the Volontaires reflected the original discourse on the zouaves developed in the decade 1860–70. Ultimately they stood for a vision of French history and French identity diametrically opposed to the legacy of 1789, a challenge to the Republic's official vision.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".