The neutral French of Mi'kma'ki : and archaeology of Acadian identities prior to 1755
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1630s, French colonists began to populate the shores of the Bay of Fundy in what is now Nova Scotia, on Canada's East Coast. In time they would become a distinct ethnic group: the Acadians. This research offers a novel explanation concerning when and how Acadian ethnogenesis occurred, and suggests a very different timeline and process to those which readers of this history are familiar. Focusing on the history and archaeology of Grand-Pre, one of the colony's largest settlements, my argument asserts that conventional understandings of Acadian ethnogenesis have been severely distorted by romanticism, nationalist historiography, - and politically-motivated myth-making. While scholarly efforts in recent decades have been conscious of this fact, and have treated the subject with much greater sophistication, the study remains both under theorized and unduly restricted in evidentiary scope. The present effort takes a multi-disciplinary approach, bringing insights from social theory concerning ethnicity to bear on this historical question. Critically, the problem of Acadian identity formation is situated within local and material contexts that would have been familiar to the colonial inhabitants themselves: seigneurie, parish, farm, and family village. The analysis is also very consciously situated within an Aboriginal environment, for despite the grand claims of imperial cartographers, the overlapping and competing colonies of Acadie and Nova Scotia remained largely Aboriginal in character throughout the period that concerns us. This was 'Mi'kma'ki', the land of the Mi'kmaq, a fact of considerable importance to what follows. 1
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".