« Pour autoriser sa pensée, il fit voir à la Compagnie une hache de pierre » : Antoine de Jussieu et les Caraïbes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 1723, Antoine de Jussieu présente devant l’Académie des sciences un exposé qui remet en cause l’origine naturelle des céraunies ou pierres de foudre . C’est d’abord le témoignage de voyageurs qui permet au botaniste du Jardin du roi de comprendre la nature de ces fossiles , semblables aux pierres taillées ou polies utilisées par les autochtones d’Amérique du Nord et des Antilles. Devant ses pairs, Jussieu montre plusieurs spécimens : une hache canadienne, une hache caraïbe et des flèches à pointes de pierre. Les auteurs de cet article se sont lancés à la recherche de la hache antillaise qui, au début du 20 e siècle, a fait l’objet d’une tentative d’identification de l’anthropologue Ernest-Théodore Hamy. Au-delà du travail de documentation des collections, cette enquête s’attache à recontextualiser la démonstration comparatiste de Jussieu, entre les Sauvages contemporains et les antiques barbares , qui est à la base de la pensée anthropologique du 19 e siècle.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".