Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet essai analyse les rapports entre les Français et les Iroquois entre 1701 et 1760. L'interprétation historique courante les caractérise comme hostiles, froids, et insignifiants. Mais les archives canadiennes révèlent des rapports culturels intimes, réciproquement salutaires, et soutenus par de fréquents contacts personnels entre les Français et les Iroquois au dix-huitième siècle. Après 1701, les Français acceptaient la neutralité iroquoienne, et fondaient leur alliance avec ces puissantes nations amérindiennes sur des principes qui ressemblaient de près le concept iroquoien de kaswentha: un rapport pacifique basé sur la coexistence du pouvoir dans un contexte de respect pour l'autonomie et le caractère distinctif de chaque groupe. La bonne volonté des Français en réglant leur politique vis-à-vis des Iroquois après une période prolongée de guerre au dix-septième siècle permet aux peuples iroquoiens de retenir leurs positions comme nations indépendantes pendant la conquête du Canada et jusqu'au présent.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".