Testing isonymy with paternal and maternal lineages in the early Québec population: The impact of polyphyletism and demographic differentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isonymy is an ingenious and useful approach to studying kinship in human populations. However, it relies on assumptions that are difficult to verify. In this study, we provided a way to assess, in the early Québec population, the impact of factors such as polyphyletism, unbalanced sex-ratio among founders, and age differentials between spouses. All data were taken from the Population Register of Early Québec, which contains births, marriages, and deaths (>712,000) recorded in parish registers from the beginning of colonization (in 1608) to 1800. More specifically, using the 70,869 marriages recorded during that period, we compared kinship estimates given by genealogies, surnames, and paternal and maternal lineages. We also calculated a fifth coefficient of kinship by combining paternal and maternal lineage, thus providing a new way to test the isonymy method. The results show a good agreement between genealogical and isonymous estimates. However, this good correspondence is due to counterbalancing biases. Some of the implications of our results are discussed in the context of colonial America.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".