L'Anthropologie et l'histoire naturelle de l'homme en 1800. Les enjeux d'un héritage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jean-Luc Chappey, Anthropology and the natural history of man in 1800: What's at stake in a legacy. In an attempt to create the right conditions for the institutionalization and legitimation of their scientific programme, the members of the Société des Observateurs de l'homme (1799-1804) appealed to the legacy of Buffon, whose Natural History of Man can be considered as the central epistemological and methodological reference for their Anthropology. This appropriation of Buffon's legacy might appear surprising, as his scientific standing was the object of a number of attacks within the community of natural history during the 1800s. Thus, we need to investigate the stakes at play in this appropriation, as well as the motivations for it. The appeal to Buffon's legacy can be interpreted in the light of the social strategies of the « minor figures » in the field, and we examine the role played by this legacy in a possible offensive led by the Observateurs against the epistemological principles of the Idéologues Cabanis and de Tracy. The resulting observations will allow us to propose a series of hypotheses concerning the disappearance of the Observateurs in 1804, as well as the « failure » of their anthropological programme, which did not survive the profound transformations that characterized the social, epistemic and methodological forms of production and diffusion of knowledge between 1800 and 1810.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".