Qu’y a-t-il de si drôle dans la chasse au canard ? Ce que les ouvrageslinguistiques nous disent de la rencontre entre les Jésuites et les Nehiraw-Iriniw 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine les différents registres linguistiques que l’on retrouvedans le corpus des écrits produits par lesmissionnaires jésuites au Canada durant les xviie et xviiie siècles. Ces manuscrits, qui regardent de très prèsl’activité quotidienne de la mission, ont été rédigés dans plusieurs languesamérindiennes et en latin. Ils permettent de mettre en évidence la qualité del’attachement que manifestèrent les missionnaires envers la culture amérindienne etson environnement. Pourtant, ils ont été fréquemment délaissés par unehistoriographie où domine la référence aux Relations des Jésuites. L’analyse du vocabulaire ornithologiquepermettra d’explorer la manière dont les Jésuites appréhendèrent la naturecanadienne, tout en révélant une mutation dans la conception même de la mission dansle courant des xviie et xviiie siècles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".