La nordicité dans une perspective comparatiste. Trois voyageurs français en Scandinavie et en Amérique au XIXe siècle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les voyages scandinaves et américains de Xavier Marmier, Jean-Jacques Ampère et Arthur de Gobineau ont nourri des relations de voyage et des textes de fiction qui montrent la permanence et l’impact du mythe du Nord dans l’imaginaire français des années 1830-1870. Articulé selon ses deux versants traditionnels – négatif dans la représentation de la nature physique et positif dans la construction d’un idéal anthropologique –, le mythe fonctionne toujours dans le cadre déterministe du «modèle Montesquieu». Alors que Marmier et Ampère perpétuent le discours romantique sur le Nord en transférant la mélancolie et l’hivernité scandinaves vers le territoire américain, Gobineau laisse le mythe de ses origines « vikings » colorer sa perception de Terre-Neuve. Chez Marmier et Gobineau, le fantasme scandinave lié à des partis pris idéologiques préside aussi à l’élaboration d’une nordicité utopique qui transcende les frontières géographiques.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".