Control and Order in French Colonial Louisbourg, 1713-1758
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally depicted as a failure, since it was conquered each time it was attacked (1745, 1758), French Louisbourg is now regarded as an ancien régime success story. Indeed, as A. J. B. (John) Johnston explains, Louisbourg was not a fort, but a full-fledged fortified town, the largest urban center of present-day Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia, established to safeguard the French cod fishery. All in all, the colony's cod fishery “returned three or four times” the crown's overall financial commitment. This new understanding of Louisbourg mainly derives from the project launched by Parks Canada in 1961 whose main objective was to reconstruct one-fifth of the fortified town. Of many prominent historians who were attached to the project (Johnston was among them from 1977 to 2000), today only Kenneth Donovan and B. A. (Sandy) Balcom are still with it. Johnston's main historiographical question is rather traditional: how much of Louisbourg society was “a repetition of known ways of doing things in France or in New France” and how much of it derived from “local conditions at Ile Royale.” In his latest book he applies his question to the concept of an old regime's ordered, controlled, and “pacified” society. Johnston's conclusion is that Louisbourg was “an obvious overseas extension of France” and a colony very similar to Canada proper, although the island's fishing economy and ethnically diverse population, together with the absence of local family traditions, the imbalance of sexes, the large military presence, and the reduced role of the Roman Catholic Church, made it “a distinctive place.”
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".