Translating as a way of writing history: <scp>F</scp>ather du <scp>C</scp>reux's <i><scp>H</scp>istoriæ <scp>C</scp>anadensis</i> and the <i><scp>R</scp>elations jésuites</i> of <scp>N</scp>ew <scp>F</scp>rance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Historiæ Canadensis, seu Nouæ‐Franciæ libri decem, ad annum vusque Christi MDCLVI is a translation commissioned by the Society of Jesus in France in order to disseminate information concerning its evangelical activities in New France in the first decades of the seventeenth century. The source text is a series of reports written by the Jesuit missionaries in simple, unadorned French prose and printed hastily and cheaply. The form is that of a travel narrative and the tone is often grim. In 1664, Father François du Creux, a Jesuit, rewrote some of these texts, producing what might be called a three‐dimensional ‘translation’ effecting their form, language, and material features. This article explores the ways in which he restructured and reorganized the individual missionary adventures into a historical, narrative framework and turned the French text into Latin, enriching it and elevating the tone as he did so. It also discusses the manner in which expensive engravings illustrating the narratives synthesized them by providing a context and an edifying dimension. Our study demonstrates how these features transform the Relations by combining to give the translation a certain ‘gravitas’, thus widening its appeal and extending its message to a new, larger, and more varied readership.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".