Les requis pour le travail obligatoire et la langue allemande : entre mutisme, utilisation et réappropriation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 1942 to 1945, some 600,000 French nationals were sent to the German Reich for forced labour. What was their attitude regarding the need to speak or translate German? Accounts and archive sources drawn upon in this piece have led to our claim that being mostly of working class backgrounds, the deported rarely knew any German. Forced abroad, their reaction was to refuse speaking the enemy’s language, notably in the factories, where a lack of understanding (often simulated) meant orders were delayed or bypassed, all while translators were suspected to be traitors. Refusing to speak also conforms, within the national community, to an attitude of withdrawal and, shown by some, of distrust – or even hostility – towards the German population. Soon, however, many changed their attitude as they realised that speaking gave them the necessary power to be able to express themselves or make a request. Notably, they were able to communicate with their colleagues with whom they developed a sense of complicity, be it political or idyllic, and they could make the most of leisure activities such as film-viewing or, for the most educated who were able to master the basics of the language, discovering another cultured Francophile Germany hiding behind the façade of the Third Reich.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".