MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1855245266 · doi:10.7202/1018280ar

Les voyageurs italiens et le fait français au Canada (17e-21e siècles)

2013· article· fr· W1855245266 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Matteo Sanfilippo

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches sociographiques · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toute une tradition de voyageurs italiens en Nouvelle-France, au Canada français et enfin au Québec nous permet en effet de suivre les développements de l’opinion italienne autour du fait français au Canada. Nous partirons des relations des jésuites (le père Francesco Giuseppe Bressani) et des traductions italiennes de mémoires du 17e siècle (par exemple, ceux d’Henri Tonti, qui d’ailleurs était né en Italie, sur l’exploration du Mississippi et de la Louisiane). Nous poursuivrons par les réflexions des « touristes » qui, après la Révolution américaine, visitent la vallée du Saint-Laurent afin de comprendre la différence entre les États-Unis et les nouvelles colonies britanniques. Nous évoquerons aussi les réflexions des exilés du Risorgimento italien qui arrivent pendant la première moitié du 19e siècle. Enfin, en ce qui concerne le Québec dans la Confédération, nous comparerons les récits de voyage publiés par des journalistes et des romanciers aux rapports sur la Province rédigés par des diplomates de l’Italie et du Vatican. Même si la plupart de ces rapports diplomatiques n’ont pas été publiés, ils étaient conçus pour être lus ; de plus, ils ont influencé sinon l’opinion publique, au moins celle des experts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches sociographiques→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→