Quelques considérations sur les "traceurs de plans" dans l’Amérique coloniale aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles: l’exemple des fondations urbaines en Nouvelle-France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Se fondant sur une citation de Pierre Lavedan sur le rôle des « traceurs de villes » de l’Amérique coloniale, cet article souligne, à travers quelques carrières d’ingénieurs militaires envoyés en Nouvelle-France aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, le large spectre d’activités développées par ces agents du roi oeuvrant au service de l’État monarchique. Si leurs projets sont aujourd’hui bien connus, leur rôle de promotion du pouvoir royal en territoire colonial, reste un sujet rarement abordé en histoire de l’architecture. L’étude de leurs projets de portes et de places royales notamment révèle pourtant combien ils ont servi la cause monarchique avec constance et loyauté malgré un agenda politique métropolitain souvent peu favorable à la réalisation de leurs projets.While the plans of French military engineers active in the American colonies during the Early Modern period have been frequently published, their professional status and the role that they played as architects and urban planners remains unclear. Sent overseas between the end of the seventeenth and the middle of the eighteenth centuries, these royal agents were dependent on a number of administrative and political changes. Based on case studies of the French engineers who built or remodeled the colonial cities of Montreal, Quebec City, Detroit and Louisburg, this article reflects on the wide scope of activities and professional status that these polymaths developed in the Americas before 1763.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".