The Colonial Question before Colonization: Philosophical and Economic Reflections on the July Monarchy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the arguments of the discussion on colonization during the July monarchy. France had two colonial periods: one that ended around 1790 and one that began around 1860. The first concerned the American continent (West Indies, Canada, Louisiana) and India (Indian trading posts), the second - the African and Asian continents. Between these two periods, the debate on colonization was intense between its supporters and opponents. The French liberal school, led by men like Guizot, Tocqueville, or Passy, opposed colonization as well as slavery. Their arguments against this opposition are economic and humanitarian. Economic, because they consider colonization as something costly and useless for the country that carries it out, as it prevents the country from making the investments necessary for its development. Humanitarian, because they are shocked by the existence of slavery and the slave trade, which leads them to take political action to ensure that the trade is prohibited in areas held by Europeans. At the time of colonization, this movement was extended to the whole of Africa, which put an end to the slavery practised there. The arguments used during this period were taken up again from 1950 onwards at the time of decolonization.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".