Un papier peint inspiré de l’Orient dans une ville coloniale d’amérique : Présence de la chinoiserie dans la maison estèbe à Québec au milieu du XVIIIe siècle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the presence of chinoiserie in 18th-century Quebec through a wallpaper found in the Estebe house in Quebec City, its fabrication techniques, its Orient-inspired themes, as well as its method of installation, all known through documents written in 1946, when the collector William H. Coverdale discovered the wallpaper. This information allows us to date the object from the 1760-1770 period. The wallpaper will be studied in relation to other objects decorated with chinoiserie motifs discovered during archaeological excavations on the site of the Estebe house. Resume Cet article propose une enquete autour d’un papier peint a motifs de chinoiserie decouvert dans la maison Estebe a Quebec. Nous etudierons ses techniques de fabrication, ses themes d’inspiration orientale, ainsi que son mode d’installation, connu grâce a la documentation constituee lors de la recuperation du papier peint par le collectionneur William H. Coverdale en 1946. Ces informations nous permettent d’associer l’objet a la periode 1760-1770. Ce papier peint sera ensuite mis en relation avec les objets a decor de chinoiserie decouverts lors des fouilles archeologiques sur le site de la maison Estebe, nous amenant par cet exemple a explorer la presence de cette mode dans l’art decoratif a Quebec vers le milieu du XVIIIe siecle.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".