Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article reprend le sujet de mon texte précédent : "Radisson's Voyages and Their Manuscripts" (Archivaria 48, Fall 1999) afin de tenter de résoudre un problème alors en suspens.Il s'agit de l'identification du scribe du seul manuscrit existant des quatre premiers récits de voyages de Pierre-Esprit Radisson (Oxford: Bodleian Rawlinson A329), un texte écrit vers 1668-69 et copié, ainsi que je l'ai fait valoir sur la base de l'analyse du papier, vers 1686-87.La nouvelle preuve paléographique présentée ici démontre que le scribe était Nicholas Hayward, un notaire professionnel et un membre habituel du Comité de Londres de la Compagnie de la Baie d'Hudson entre 1668 et 1690.Cet article examine la carrière de Hayward et ses relations avec Radisson, de même que les façons dont le Comité de Londres a pris en charge la gestion des archives de la nouvelle compagnie.L'expertise reconnue de Hayward dans la traduction française démontre que le manuscrit Bodleian ne peut être une traduction grossière, ainsi que l'avait suggéré Grace Lee Nute en 1943, mais a presque certainement été écrit directement en anglais par Radisson lui-même. ABSTRACT This article returns to the subject of my "Radisson's Voyages and TheirManuscripts" (Archivaria 48, Fall 1999) in pursuit of a problem unresolved there: identifying the scribe of the only extant manuscript (Oxford: Bodleian Rawlinson A329) of Pierre-Esprit Radisson's first four travel narratives, a text written about 1668-9 and copied (as I argued on the basis of paper evidence ) ca. 1686-7.The new palaeographical evidence described here shows that the scribe was Nicholas Hayward, a professional notary and a frequent member of the London Committee of the Hudson's Bay Company between 1668 and 1690.The article examines Hayward's career and his possible relationship with Radisson, but also considers the ways in which the London Committee handled the problem of archiving the papers of the new company.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.029 |
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".