Le statut juridique des enfants métis nés en Afrique Occidentale Française de parents inconnus : Entre idéalisme républicain et turpitudes coloniales The Legal Position of Mixed-Race Children Born in French Western Africa of Unknown Parents: Between Republican Idealism and Colonial Turpitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le métissage, lié au contact colonial, s’entend ici des croisements « hors des liens du mariage » entre Européens et Noirs, résultant de la présence française en Afrique Occidentale. Le statut des enfants métis issus de ces unions illustre, à hauteur d’un cas d’école, comment le droit construit ce qui, aujourd’hui, prend l’appellation juridique de discrimination.L’auteur étudie cette « question métisse » à la lumière du droit colonial : la place des métis dans l’empire colonial français pose problème : sont-ils des citoyens ou des sujets indigènes ?Les débats ont été passionnés tant du point de vue ethnologique que juridique avec notamment le fait que la notion de « race » s’est retrouvée reconnue dans les textes juridiques. Colonial dominations have always given way, from a demographical point of view, to “mixed-raced” populations who have difficulties to be categorized by legal classifications: are they true or second-class citizens? This article analyzes the situation in colonial Western French Africa (AOF), showing the fact that the notion of race has been recognized in order to give a place to children, born outside marriage ties, from unions between Europeans and Black people. Through the analysis of legal texts and judicial precedents, the author shows how the colonial law has created what could be considered nowadays as discrimination.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".