MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Assimilation in Early Modern French America

2013· book-chapter· en· W2483547438 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saliha Belmessous

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCivilityIdeologyColonialismIndigenousPoliticsPolitical scienceMetropolitan areaHistorySociologyPolitical economyEthnologyGender studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter examines the efforts of seventeenth-century French authorities to construct a colonial society in North America that included settlers and indigenous peoples. The mixing of settlers and natives through intermarriage and common living aimed at creating not a métis society but a homogeneous and virtuous French society. Thus colonial officials encouraged native people to accept French religion and civility. Francisation became the official French policy toward the Amerindians. However, the policy failed because of natives’ refusal to assimilate on these terms. To account for that failure, French colonial officials developed a new ideology that racialized Amerindians. It is this ideological change that accounts for the metropolitan formation of racialized attitudes. Consequently, in explaining the history of assimilation in New France, the chapter argues that racial ideology in the colony was not the result of exploitation; nor was it influenced by metropolitan intellectual discussion of the ideas of civility and progress. Instead, racial ideology arose directly out of the political experience of colonization.

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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.147 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis→French-language works237,207→