Contribution à l’étude de l’origine du rang au Québec : la politique spatiale des Cent-Associés
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À l'exception de Blanchard, de Deffontaines, de Derruau et de Hamelin, peu de géographes ont étudié le rang, en particulier son origine. Parmi les études plus récentes, signalons celles de Harris et de Bélanger qui soutiennent l'un, que le rang aurait pu être implanté indépendamment de la tenure en fief, l'autre, qu'il fut la conséquence de faits d'organisation régionale d'ordre naturel et social. Le présent article a pour but d'éclairer le contexte premier d'apparition du rang dans la vallée du Saint-Laurent. Il propose une interprétation selon laquelle seigneuries et censives définissent un système original de partage des terres destiné à servir les fins d'une occupation rapide et totale du couloir laurentien, axe principal de pénétration vers l'intérieur. Amorcée dans la première moitié du XVIIe siècle, l'implantation du rang sera suffisamment complétée en 1663 pour résister aux changements politiques ultérieurs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".