In 2015, the Annales journal, traditionally open to interdisciplinary approaches in history, referred to 'the current historiographical moment [as] call [ing] for an experimentation of approaches'. 1 Although this observation did not exclusively refer to the new possibilities offered by the technological advancements of the time -particularly in the field of artificial intelligence 2 -it was nonetheless motivated by these rapid and numerous changes, which also affect the historiographical landscape. A year earlier, St\'ephane Lamass\'e and Philippe Rygiel spoke of the 'new frontiers of the historian', frontiers opened a few years earlier by the realisation of the unprecedented impact of new technologies on historical practices, leading to a 'mutation des conditions de production et de diffusion des connaissances historiques, voire de la nature de celles-ci' ('transformation of the conditions of production and dissemination of historical knowledge, and even the nature of this knowledge'). 3 It was in this fertile ground, conducive to the cross-fertilisation of approaches, that the TIME-US project was born in 2016. TIME-US is directly the result of this awareness and reflects the transformations induced by major technological advancements, disrupting not only our daily practices but also our historical practices. 1 Annales 2015, 216. 2 For example, convolutional neural networks, which have revolutionised the field of artificial intelligence, began to gain popularity just before the 2010s. 3 Translated by the author. Lamass\'e and Rygiel 2014. To quantify women's work in the past, labour historians cannot rely on the classic sources of their discipline, which allow to produce large statistical data series, systematically treatable in the form of databases. What to do when such data are not available? Should the task simply be abandoned? As Maria {\AA}gren points out, the invisibility of women's participation in the labour market does not mean non-existence 8 ; there must therefore be traces of it. To quantify women's economic activity, Sara Horrell and Jane Humphries, for example, turned to household budgets from 59 different sources (from Parliamentary Papers to autobiographical texts), which had never before been systematically used to identify women's work patterns and their contribution to family income. 9 In her study A Bitter Living: Women, Markets, and Social Capital in Early Modern Germany published in 2003, Sheilagh Ogilvie used information contained in court records to identify activities carried out by women and the time spent on these activities. Court records were not intended to record such information; yet, in their testimonies, witnesses often described in detail the activities they were engaged in while a crime was unfolding before their eyes. Sheilagh Ogilvie thus identified nearly 3000 such observations. 10 These works have opened two main avenues for the TIME-US project. First, making already digitised sources accessible in homogeneous corpora. 11 Following the example of previous research, TIME-US mobilised varied sources containing traces of professional activities carried out by women in France during the period studied: these include both printed (posters and petitions, working-class newspapers, and contemporary surveys on workers) and handwritten sources (labour court decisions, police reports, company archives, personal archives, surveys, petitions). 12 One of the project's objectives was to gather and 8 {\AA}gren 2018a, 144. 9 Horrell and Humphries 1995.

翻译：2015年，《年鉴》杂志——这本历来对历史学跨学科方法持开放态度的期刊——指出“当前史学时刻呼唤研究方法的实验性探索”。尽管这一观察并非特指当时技术进步（尤其是人工智能领域）带来的全新可能性，但它确实受到这些快速且广泛变革的驱动，这些变革同样重塑着史学研究格局。早一年，斯特凡纳·拉马塞与菲利普·里吉埃尔曾论及“史学家的新前沿”——数年前因认识到新技术对历史实践产生的空前影响而开启的疆域，这导致了“历史知识生产与传播条件乃至知识本质的转变”。正是在这片促进方法交叉融合的沃土中，TIME-US项目于2016年诞生。该项目直接源于此种认知，并反映了重大技术进步引发的变革——这些变革不仅颠覆我们的日常实践，亦重塑着历史研究实践。为量化历史上的女性劳动，劳动史学者无法依赖本学科的传统史料（这类史料能产出可系统处理为数据库的大规模统计数据序列）。当此类数据不可得时，应当如何应对？是否应直接放弃研究任务？正如玛丽亚·奥格伦所指出的，女性在劳动力市场参与的无形性并不等同于不存在；因此必然存在相关痕迹。例如，萨拉·霍雷尔与简·汉弗莱斯为量化女性经济活动，转向了来自59种不同来源（从议会文件到自传文本）的家庭预算资料——这些资料此前从未被系统用于识别女性工作模式及其对家庭收入的贡献。希拉格·奥格尔维在其2003年出版的著作《苦涩生计：近代早期德国的女性、市场与社会资本》中，利用法庭记录中的信息来识别女性从事的活动及其耗时。法庭记录本无意记载此类信息；然而证人在证词中常详细描述罪行发生时自身正从事的活动。奥格尔维由此识别出近3000条此类观察记录。这些研究为TIME-US项目开辟了两条主要路径：其一，使已数字化的史料在标准化语料库中可被获取；其二，效仿先前研究，项目汇集了包含研究时期内法国女性职业活动痕迹的多元史料——既包括印刷资料（海报与请愿书、工人阶级报纸、当代工人调查），亦涵盖手写文献（劳资纠纷法庭判决书、警方报告、企业档案、个人档案、调查记录、请愿书）。项目目标之一在于整合并构建这些异构资料，通过系统化处理揭示女性劳动的历史维度。