Bibliographic record
Abstract
Est-il possible de retracer une rumeur ayant circulé au Québec dans les années 1770-1790 ? C’est ce que se propose de faire cette étude au sujet de bruits selon lesquels la France aurait voulu reconquérir le Canada. Parmi les sources exploitées : la correspondance d’une religieuse (Marie-Catherine Juchereau-Duchesnay), le témoignage de deux notaires (Jean-Baptiste Badeaux et Simon Sanguinet), une brochure de propagande (attribuée à François Baby) et une lettre forgée par George Washington et le marquis de Lafayette. En contextualisant la production et la diffusion de ces rumeurs dans la province, on tente ici de comprendre l’état d’esprit de la population rurale au moment de la guerre d’Indépendance américaine et dans les années qui suivirent. Cette étude de l’imaginaire de la reconquête se veut une contribution aux travaux sur la rumeur et à l’histoire des mentalités canadiennes par le biais des traces de l’oralité trouvées dans l’archive.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".