Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malgré l'étude de Louis Rousseau sur les Sulpiciens de Montréal, l'histoire de la prédication au Canada français est peu connue et encore moins étudiée. Les textes épiscopaux officiels en parlent de temps en temps, dans des lettres personnelles des évêques sentent le besoin de rabrouer des curés pour leur négligence à prêcher, la plupart des communautés religieuses d'hommes y préparent leurs membres et leur transmettent des règles et un style éprouvés. Mais ces documents disparates ont été peu exploités jusqu'à maintenant ; et encore moins à propos de ce qu'on peut appeler la prédication populaire, c'est-à-dire celle qui «cherche ce qui convient communément à tous les hommes ». Mon propos ne veut éclairer qu'une tranche minime de ce territoireinexploré de l'histoire religieuse. Il se borne simplement à livrer quelques réflexions sur la prédication populaire au XIXe siècle, vue à partir des jubilés, de l'exemple de Mgr de Forbin-Janson et des missions paroissiales.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".