La culture diplomatique des années 1650, ou son imaginaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation aims at redefining the term diplomatic culture in the 1650s in France and England. This task will be done via a data of 10 French and English embassies and with the help of a unique source in the field of diplomatic history: the newspapers. While analyzing the articles of both the Mercurius Politicus and the Gazette, the diplomatic culture of this period seems to change in form, influenced by both the goals of the French and English governments in writing these newspapers, but also shaped by the views of the readers of this new medium.Beginning with a description of its methodology and the evolution of the different types of historiographies used in here, this dissertation then moves towards a parallel analysis of both the content of diplomatic correspondence and the articles of these two newspapers for this period. Such comparisons suggest that the diplomatic correspondence offers a more detailed, personal and even down to earth accounts of diplomatic missions. On the other hand, newspapers prefer to use diplomats as tools to promote various policies, values, and ideas. Diplomats, in such articles, do not have to defend their honor or the honor of their country: their presence abroad already symbolizes such an honor, according to the editors of these newspapers. Confronted with these two different perspectives, the definition of diplomatic culture needs to be reconsidered, mainly based on the actors affecting the evolution of this notion.Such a perspective demonstrates that by the middle of the 17th century, the representative public sphere did exist, but was also shared by a certain civil public sphere, where the voice of the public was starting to have its own weight. This public did not just limit itself to reading newspapers; it also affected their content by its own interests and values. Therefore, diplomatic culture was not only limited to the selected world of the diplomats and state leaders, but also spread to this new public and even evolved partly according to its own views.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".