National, Transnational, and Hypernational Historiographies: New France Meets Early American History
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Have transnational currents (Atlantic, borderlands, continentalist) in the history of colonial North America overcome the distortions long associated with a national framing of research on the early modern period? Have we left behind the tendency to read the political geography of the nineteenth century back into the history of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? Taking the example of writings on New France, a colonial formation that sprawled across large parts of what was to become Canada and the United States, this article argues that national historiographic traditions continue to exert a powerful influence. Even as they pursue their subject across modern borders, Canadian, Quebec and United States historians frequently view New France through the lens of their own respective national traditions. The recent upsurge of interest in New France on the part of Early Americanists is a welcome development, but its impact is somewhat vitiated by a tendency to retain a United States-centric intellectual agenda while annexing new territories and cultures to what remains a national intellectual enterprise. The article concludes with the suggestion that New France specialists situate their work more in a wider hemispheric context, one that includes comparative perspectives on Latin America and the Caribbean.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it