Traduttore è traditore : aux sources de l’antagonisme Garneau-Bell : deux conceptions du pouvoir politique bas-canadien
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En septembre 1859, alors que François-Xavier Garneau vient tout juste de publier la troisième édition de sonHistoire du Canada, l’éditeur John Lovell annonce la traduction prochaine de l’oeuvre par le rédacteur en chef duPilotde Montréal, Andrew Bell. Or, alors que Garneau espérait une traduction fidèle de l’oeuvre, c’est une adaptation plutôt libre qu’offre Bell en 1860. Dans le présent article, l’auteur intéresse, plus particulièrement, à l’écart existant entre la version originale et la traduction sur la question du lieu où repose la légitimité du pouvoir politique bas-canadien non seulement en observant les différences entre les deux versions de l’Histoire du Canada, mais également en tentant de les expliquer en fonction des expériences et de la pensée politique de Garneau et de Bell ainsi que des horizons d’attente auxquels ils faisaient face.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".