MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2274962780

Intimate Frontiers : Indians, French and Africans in the Mississippi Valley

2011· preprint· en· W2274962780 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sonia Toudji

Bibliographic record

Venuetheses.fr (ABES) · 2011
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismCONQUESTPoliticsPower (physics)Competitor analysisPolitical scienceEthnologyHistoryHuman sexualityNative americanGenealogyGender studiesEconomic historySociologyAncient historyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ma thèse explore les rencontres qui eurent lieu entre Français, Amérindiens et Africains en Louisiane, à l’époque de l’Amérique coloniale. C’est plus précisément sur la partie sud du territoire que ce travail s’est penché. Les bornes chronologiques sont 1686, découverte du territoire par Robert La Salle et 1803, vente du territoire, alors Français, aux Américains par Napoléon en 1803. Mon projet était d’analyser les rapports établis entre ces trois groupes en mettant l’accent sur les relations intimes qui se sont créées entre eux (relations sexuelles, concubinage, mariages mixtes), et les liens de parenté sont également des objets d’étude dans cette recherche. De ces relations intimes émergent diverses communautés : ainsi, les « métis » font référence aux enfants nés de Français et d’Amérindiens alors que les « Griffe » désignent une autre communauté, résultat d’unions entre Africains et Amérindiens. L’étude de ces deux groupes représente une partie de ce travail. Cette thèse s’attache aussi à analyser les conséquences de ces unions sur les rapports sociaux, économiques, et diplomatiques entre ces différents peuples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuetheses.fr (ABES)Same topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207