Les échelles catholiques comme exemples de métissage religieux des ontologies chrétiennes et amérindiennes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discovery of a unique version of Lacombe’s Catholic Ladder annotated in the Innu language, and in use in the middle of the 20th century among the St Laurence North Shore Innus (who were known as Montagnais from the 17th to the 20th century), gives us opportunities to question again the production history of these illustrated catechism posters, which served as tools of conversion. After showing the connection between this “Catholic ladder” and aboriginal selective writing practices, we look at the rich history of the tradition from its emergence on the Pacific Coast to its spread throughout world Catholic missions from the middle of the 19th until the middle of the 20th century. We also present a commented translation of the Innu annotation of Lacombe’s Ladder and show that the origin of its success among Aboriginal peoples is that it transmits a Christian content using a symbolic method of spreading knowledge that is typically aboriginal. The Ladder is a product of religious “ métissage” (cultural mixing or cultural combination) between Catholic and aboriginal religions, and it is this “ métissage” that has led to its international success.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".