MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045049385 · doi:10.7202/005421ar

Le voyage de Radisson et Des Groseilliers au lac Supérieur, 1659-1660 : un événement marquant dans la consolidation des relations franco-amérindiennes

2002· article· fr· W2045049385 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Martin Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d histoire de l Amérique française · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les récits de voyage de Radisson, redécouverts dans les archives anglaises et publiés pour la première fois en 1885, contiennent un grand nombre d'informations précises et sou- vent exclusives sur les premières relations diplomatiques et commerciales que nouèrent les Européens et les Amérindiens, dans la seconde moitié du XVIIe siècle. Des recherches récentes mettent en évidence l'expertise de Radisson sur cette question et réhabilitent l'essentiel de son témoignage, qui avait été plutôt négligé jusqu'ici par les historiens. Cet article présente la stratégie que déployèrent Radisson et Des Groseilliers lors du voyage pion- nier qu'ils accomplirent ensemble au lac Supérieur, en 1659-1660 (quatrième récit de voyage de Radisson) et donne un aperçu des conclusions riches et nuancées qu'il est possible de tirer du témoignage de cet acteur et témoin privilégié, concernant les relations non missionnaires que développèrent les Français et leurs partenaires amérindiens après la dispersion des Hurons et la fin du monopole jésuite en territoire autochtone, en 1650.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d histoire de l Amérique françaiseSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207