Femmes, marchés et production textile au Nouveau-Brunswick, au XIXe siècle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jusqu’à une date récente, la persistance de la production textile domestique dans l’Est canadien au xixe siècle fut attribuée à la pauvreté. Les ménages agricoles, manquant de ressources pour se procurer de l’étoffe d’usine auprès des marchands, s’efforçaient d’être autosuffisants dans ce domaine. L’exemple du Nouveau-Brunswick montre que d’autres facteurs pouvaient encourager et faciliter cette production, et corrobore les hypothèses récentes émises par certains historiens canadiens. La production textile fut facilitée par le développement d’une infrastructure locale (moulins à carder), mais surtout par la possibilité de se procurer du coton de chaîne fabriqué en usine. Elle était destinée aux échanges et à la vente, tout autant qu’à la consommation familiale. La production textile domestique était aussi affaire de femmes, qui y trouvaient leur compte. Le textile domestique se vendait cher et le profit que les tisserandes retiraient de leur travail était élevé. Elles pouvaient espérer gagner presque autant qu’un salarié masculin.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.002 |
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".