Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cette note de recherche, l'auteur revient sur la requête montagnaise du 8 avril 1847, souvent présentée à tort comme étant du 8 mai 1847 ou du mois de janvier 1849, et il indique les raisons qui le font pencher en faveur de cette date de rédaction du 8 avril 1847. L'auteur traite également de ses autres versions, mieux connues des chercheurs, mais qui demeurent incomplètes en ce sens qu'elles ne contiennent pas les signatures des nombreux pétitionnaires. Il élabore aussi sur le contexte dans lequel la pétition fut écrite et transmise aux autorités. Il tente enfin de distinguer, parmi les demandes exprimées, les intentions réelles des Montagnais de celles de leurs missionnaires. En rendant disponible l'original de la pétition montagnaise du 8 avril 1847, l'auteur contribue à l'étude de l'histoire des Innus de la côte nord du Saint-Laurent et de leurs familles.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".