MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988373966 · doi:10.3917/rhmc.663.0128

Cartels et lobbies de la vraie vanille : marketing, genre, nostalgie et réseaux postcoloniaux

2019· article· fr· W2988373966 on OpenAlexaffabout
Éric T. Jennings

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Issue d’Amérique centrale, la vanille devint au cours du xix e siècle une denrée impériale française par excellence, associée au luxe et à la colonisation. En effet, en 1933, Madagascar produisait 80 % de toute la vanille consommée à l’échelle globale. En 1967, les colonies et territoires français de l’océan Indien (Madagascar, La Réunion, Comores) parvinrent à maintenir grosso modo cette part du marché mondial. Pourtant, la vanille étant l’une des denrées agricoles les plus chères de la planète à produire, divers ersatz vinrent la concurrencer. La vanille de synthèse connut en effet un essor considérable. Chez les grands pays importateurs qu’étaient les États-Unis et le Canada, l’utilisation de vanille synthétique augmenta de 700 % entre 1933 et 1963. Cet article se penche sur une période clef, au cours des années 1960, durant laquelle les pays producteurs de vanille tentèrent d’enrayer la montée inexorable des produits de synthèse à arôme de vanille. Associant pays nouvellement indépendants et ancienne puissance coloniale, ils tentèrent d’établir des prix planchers et entreprirent des démarches auprès de la CEE. Ciblant le public français, ils jouèrent surtout sur des registres nostalgiques et genrés pour promouvoir la « vraie vanille ».

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d’histoire moderne et contemporaineSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207