Le Penant et le Dareste face au statut juridique des métis nés de parents inconnus. Une étude comparative (1891-1946)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fondés à la fin du xixe siècle, le Recueil Dareste et le Recueil Penant font partie des principaux périodiques français spécialisés en droit colonial. À travers un dépouillement complet de ces deux revues, cette contribution vise à réaliser une étude thématique à caractère comparatif, en s’arrêtant sur les problèmes soulevés par la définition du statut juridique des personnes nées dans l’espace ultramarin de parents légalement inconnus. Il s’agit de l’une des questions les plus brûlantes qui occupent les spécialistes de droit colonial à partir de la fin du xixe siècle. Ces personnes doivent être considérées comme citoyens français ou plutôt comme des sujets ? Comment le Penant et le Dareste ont approché cette question ? Quelles sont les divergences et les convergences interprétatives entre ces deux revues ? Est-il possible de détecter deux différents approches au droit colonial ?
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".