MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020503521 · doi:10.1093/fs/knt037

Les Réfugiés acadiens en France, 1758–1785: l'impossible réintégration? <i>Les Réfugiés acadiens en France, 1758–1785: l'impossible réintégration?</i> Par J <scp>ean-</scp> F <scp>rançois</scp> M <scp>ouhot</scp> . Québec: Éditions du Septentrion, 2009. 448 pp, ill., maps.

2013· article· fr· W2020503521 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. Plank

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHistoryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 1755 and 1760 the British Empire expelled several thousand French-speaking colonists from the region known today as maritime Canada. These exiles — now collectively known as Acadians — were sent to many places, and a large number of them eventually came to France. In 1785, after protracted, complex negotiations, approximately sixteen hundred Acadians left France for Spanish-ruled Louisiana. Some historians have argued that the 1785 move away was inevitable, because after several generations in the colonies the Acadians were no longer French enough to live comfortably in France. Jean-François Mouhot tells a much more interesting story. The first section of his book is devoted to policy debates over the future of the Acadians. An almost bewildering array of proposals were advanced, some never implemented, some only partially, and some fully but with only mixed results. The Acadians received a financial subsidy, which generated a great deal of paperwork, allowing Mouhot to reconstruct the economic lives of the exiles, the subject of the second section of the book. Part III examines Acadian identity, the reputation of Acadians among administrators, their manner of presenting themselves, and the reactions of their native-born French neighbours. Just as they had done in North America, Acadian communities in France appointed deputies to speak for them in negotiations with government officials. Some figures who had assumed leadership roles among the Acadians before the deportation retained influence afterwards, including the Catholic priests Jean-Louis Le Loutre and Jacques Girard. In France, however, there were important transformations in Acadian politics. Under the British colonial regime the people we call ‘Acadians’ were almost universally known as ‘French neutrals’. In France the Acadians dropped the ‘neutral’ label and insisted that they had always been unqualifiedly devoted to the French crown. (The Acadians in Pennsylvania, by contrast, insisted that neutrality had become a moral imperative for them and a defining cultural trait.) Mouhot warns us not to overgeneralize. He presents a great deal of data in his effort to determine whether it is possible to identify a distinct Acadian ‘identity’ in France prior to 1785. In the years leading up to their departure for Louisiana, the Acadians were increasingly likely to identify themselves as a ‘nation’, but at the same time more of them were entering into marriages with native-born French. Like much recent work on the Acadians, this book corrects older studies that emphasized the exiles' shared characteristics. In many respects, Mouhot's work resembles Christopher Hodson's The Acadian Diaspora: An Eighteenth-Century History (Oxford: OUP, 2012), except that Hodson concentrates on the dispersal of Acadians to exotic locales, and adds little to our knowledge of the process that brought the Acadian exiles to the places where we are most likely to find their descendants today: New Brunswick and Louisiana. Mouhot's book is more relevant to the history of Louisiana's Cajuns. In the end, however, Acadian history can never be just about Acadians. Mouhot has framed his study as Acadian history, but he also provides a quirky angle for examining the improvisational politics of Ancien Régime France.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreReview

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrench StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207