Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: The Travels, 1850 Version Barbara Belyea (bio) David Thompson. The Travels, 1850 Version. Volume 1 of The Writings of David Thompson, edited by William E. Moreau McGill-Queen’s University Press. 2009. lxiv, 352. $44.95 William Moreau is the third editor of Thompson’s memoirs written between 1846 and 1850, called his Narrative or his Travels. Still in draft form when Thompson died in 1857, the manuscript changed hands [End Page 688] several times before J.B. Tyrrell published it as the Champlain Society volume for 1916; the same text was reissued in 1962, introduced by Richard Glover. Tyrrell’s interest was in Thompson the surveyor and cartographer, Glover’s in Thompson the explorer and company man. Moreau’s edition is the first to provide an account of the manuscript drafts, hence the process of composition. Moreau’s interest is in Thompson the writer. Moreau aims to liberate the text from ‘the overly narrow confines of the North American fur trade’ – to place Thompson’s ‘world of works, both textual and material . . . within more ample horizons.’ Yet Moreau sees Thompson’s apprenticeship to the Hudson’s Bay Company, especially the ‘four inland years’ of 1786–90, as ‘the freshest and most vivid part of the entire work’ and adds, ‘The importance of this period can hardly be overestimated.’ This section, with its annotations and references, can serve as a representative sample of the edited text. Several events define the ‘four inland years’ as a formative period: a grueling trip from York Factory, wintering near the Rocky Mountains, trade along the Saskatchewan River, and Philip Turnor’s lessons in practical astronomy. Moreau’s notes identify the places, flora, fauna, and people mentioned in Thompson’s text. As a rule, Moreau’s annotation is limited to these categories. Some notes are missing, such as the modern name (Nelson River) for the ‘Kis is katchewan River’ east of Lake Winnipeg and the name (Grand Rapids) of ‘a long and heavy fall.’ And some notes miss the point: Thompson’s comment that ‘we had raised a doric building, which might suit a painter of rustic scenery’ elicits an explanation of Greek architecture, not a reference to the picturesque landscapes evoked in contemporary exploration narratives. Thompson’s mention of the current standard of trade could be checked in contemporary company accounts. And his sly remark, ‘When the tents remove, the able men are all a hunting,’ echoes Fidler’s similar comment in 1792. This might be seen as nitpicking. But Moreau’s habit of responding to details rather than building a systematic context indicates the usefulness of his annotations and the reach of his references. Moreau admits that ‘the context [of the Travels] is certainly that of the life of its author, especially his fur trade career.’ ‘Context’ literally means comparison with other documents. For every period of Thompson’s fur-trade life there exist parallel texts – post journals, correspondence, accounts, maps, and reports – which confirm, nuance, or question the assertions and judgments of Thompson’s memoirs. These parallels are never so plentiful as for the ‘four inland years.’ Moreau misses many opportunities to illuminate Thompson’s version of events because he repeatedly fails to cite a large, informative context of fur-trade documents. Like the notes, Moreau’s appendix of biographies reflects ‘ample horizons’ but short-changes [End Page 689] Thompson’s fur-trade colleagues: Turnor’s bio is half the length of Franklin’s; Fidler’s notice omits striking parallels with Thompson’s career; George Hudson and James Gaddy receive no notice at all. Thompson’s early cartography is not reproduced or discussed. Moreau’s coverage of printed sources is also unbalanced: a well-known current edition of Thompson’s own journals and several pertinent historical studies pass unmentioned, while the reader is invited to consider twentieth-century poems and a novel about Thompson’s wife. A shift in interest and emphasis with each edition is inevitable and in many respects desirable. As Moreau points out, ‘[T]he breadth of the Travels is reflected in the many ways in which the work has been approached’ (xiii). Moreau’s attention to the stages of composition and his insistence on a reliable...
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.113 | 0.067 |
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".