Afterlives of Saint-Simonianism: Michel Chevalier and nineteenth-century French liberalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the evolution of nineteenth-century French economist Michel Chevalier’s reputation and self-understanding as a Saint-Simonian. Despite only having served two years as chief editor of the famous Saint-Simonian Globe, Chevalier’s attempt to re-integrate himself into liberal intellectual circles following his split from the Saint-Simonian movement was consistently hindered by his perceived adherence to its illiberal principles. This article mobilizes Chevalier’s reputation as a means to explore the porous boundary between Saint-Simonianism and French liberalism at a time when the contours between the two traditions were still not clearly defined. I also argue that the economist’s continued prioritization of economic development over political liberty grounded a variety of liberalism that many political liberals found intolerable, notably in its willingness to endure Bonapartist authoritarianism for the sake of economic growth. Mobilizing new archival material from the Second Empire, this article illuminates how Chevalier and others understood his relation to Saint-Simonianism and liberalism in the moment when he was at the apogee of his power and influence.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".