MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2791633019 · doi:10.3138/chr.99.1.1

Education, <i>Francisation</i>, and Shifting Colonial Priorities at the Ursuline Convent in Seventeenth-Century Québec

2018· article· en· W2791633019 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mairi Cowan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismIndigenousIncarnationOrder (exchange)Reading (process)HistoryPolitical scienceClassicsLawTheologyPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the goals of the nuns at the Ursuline convent in seventeenth-century Québec was to “Frenchify” Indigenous students. This paper presents a new way of interpreting the question of whether the Ursulines succeeded or failed in their efforts at francisation by reading Marie de l'Incarnation's concerns with her order's progress against a broader history of French colonial policy. When royal authorities in France and their agents in New France started to demand that missionaries do more to compel people to replace Indigenous customs with French ones, the Ursulines remained committed to a different approach. Students at the Ursuline convent school retained many Indigenous practices, and the nuns recognized that they had to adapt their pedagogical approaches to fit the realities of daily life in Canada. In facing changing French ideals about assimilation, the Ursulines crafted careful responses by using an additive and accommodationist approach that shows the complexity of francisation within a variegated and dynamic French colonial experience.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical Review→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→