Le Premier établissement de la foy, une oeuvre collective supervisée ? Étude de la réécriture d’un passage de l’Histoire du Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’analyse de la réécriture d’un passage de l’Histoire du Canada (1634) dans Premier établissement de la foy (1691) permet d’éclairer la genèse de ce dernier ouvrage où le souci de la précision paraît inféodé à ses enjeux rhétoriques, polémiques et idéologiques. Par cette réécriture qui change radicalement non pas la lettre, mais l’esprit de l’Histoire du Canada, Premier établissement de la foy s’affirme comme un ouvrage collectif auquel plusieurs récollets auraient contribué et dont le manuscrit Histoire chronologique de la Nouvelle France est tout autant, sur le plan génétique, une source tierce − comme le sont le manuscrit Memorial et l’ouvrage Histoire chronologique de la province des Récollets de Paris de Hyacinthe Lefebvre − qu’un état antérieur. Ces constats raffinent notre compréhension de ce texte en élargissant, nous semble-t-il, l’enjeu du Premier établissement de la foy qui paraît dépasser le seul débat Jésuites-Récollets dominant le chapitre XVbis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".