Gentilshommes campagnards de la nouvelle France, XVIIeâXIXe siecle: Une autre seigneurie laurentienne?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although they were a minority among seigneurs in the St. Lawrence Valley, resident seigneurs maintained a much more "intimate" relationship to their community than those who were absent from their fiefs. This article, which examines ten resident seigneurial families from their beginnings in the seventeenth century to the abolition of the Canadian seigneurial regime in the nineteenth, discovers harmonious social relations between the two central actors of the preindustrial rural world: the seigneur and the habitant. While the historiography of the last several decades insisted on the "feudal" and binding character of the Canadian seigneurial system, the study of resident seigneurs suggests a different understanding of seigneurial relationships. Seigneurial godfathers and godmothers, shared family or collective festivities, and beneficent actions of seigneurs are evidence for a kinder, gentler Canadian seigneurie in which the time of arrival of the seigneurial family and the social origin of the seigneur (noble or commoner) were important factors. Resident seigneurs thus call into question the oppressive character of the regime, despite the existence of various conflicts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".