Imagining Paradise: The Visual Depiction of Pre-Deportation Acadia, 1850-2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a widely-held interpretation that l’ancienne Acadie was something of an earthly paradise. That idealized interpretation dates back to, and was heavily influenced by, the writings of Dièreville in 1699 and Abbé Raynal in 1770. The idea came to a literary flowering and a worldwide audience in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s 1847 poem Evangeline, A Tale of Acadie. Beginning with the first illustrated edition of Evangeline in 1850, and continuing for the next 150 years, a succession of artists offered different versions of the imagined bucolic paradise of Acadia. That body of artwork both reflected and advanced the intellectual and emotional construct that pre-deportation Acadie had been a pastoral place of peace, harmony, and plenty. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, British and American publishers commissioned British and American artists to depict scenes to accompany Evangeline. In the latter half of the twentieth century, Canadian heritage agencies commissioned Canadian artists to develop new artwork of pre-deportation Acadia, without Evangeline imagery or Evangeline-related storylines. None the less, the paintings produced in the last few decades of the twentieth century continued to offer, for the most part, variations on the basic idea that Acadie before 1755 was a time and a place that enjoyed idyllic conditions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".