Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the development of relations between France and Italy in the context of the status of the Italian population of Tunisia issue. Thanks to the agreements reached by the Italian states and the government of Tunisia, in the first half of the 19th century mass emigration of Italians began to Tunisia, as a result, by the end of the 19th century, a significant Italian diaspora had formed in Tunisia. The establishment of a French protectorate over Tunisia led to the question of the status of the Italian population of Tunisia, which was eventually settled by the Franco-Italian convention of 1896. After the First World War, France refused to comply with the decisions of 1896. The French government set itself the goal of naturalizing Italians in Tunisia. The Italian government strongly opposed such a policy. The negotiations did not lead to a settlement of the conflict. The place of the ‘Tunisian question’ in relations between Italy and France in the 1920s is analyzed, the numerous discussions of the problem of the status of Italians in Tunisia and Italy’s attempts at least to maintain the situation, that existed in accordance with the 1896 convention, are considered in the article. It is proved that Tunisia, with its large Italian diaspora, occupied a significant place in the African policy of Italy during the period of fascism. It is substantiated that the period of the 1920s was essentially the preparatory work for a more serious discussion of the colonial problems that arose between France and Italy, which resulted in the Laval-Mussolini agreement of 1935.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".