Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dès la fin du xixe siècle, les administrateurs coloniaux ont mis en place des institutions et des normes pour évaluer et gérer l’enfance « indigène » « abandonnée ». Le placement d’orphelins, la déchéance de maternité et le choix de tuteurs ou tutrices délégué.e.s sont notamment confiés aux commissions de tutelle, des instances qui rassemblent des représentants de l’État colonial, des missions et institutions religieuses et des particuliers. Cet article s’intéresse aux enfants métis, nés de relations interraciales dans le contexte colonial au Congo et au Ruanda-Urundi. Les commissions s’appuient sur un réseau de recensement et d’enquête pour décider du sort des enfants, contrôler les mères – africaines – et dans une moindre mesure et non sans contradictions, contraindre les pères européens « présumés » à contribuer financièrement à l’éducation de leurs enfants métis. Cet article montre comment la commission de tutelle constitue un observatoire des ambiguïtés, du paternalisme, du racisme et de la violence de la société coloniale.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".