Bibliographic record
Abstract
At its apex, the early modern French Empire laid claim to nearly a third of North America, ruled over the Caribbean’s most profitable plantations, and controlled a substantial proportion of the transatlantic slave trade. Several hundred thousand French-speaking settlers lived permanently in the colonies, and many more were tied to overseas interests through trade, investment, or family relationships. In the late 18th century, Saint-Domingue produced more wealth than any place on earth, becoming, like Potosí in the 16th and 17th centuries, a symbol of the grand possibilities of colonialism. Until recently, however, scholarship on France’s first empire has been characterized by neglect and fragmentation. In the United States, many historians of colonial North America viewed the French presence as a mere sideshow; French historians paid relatively little attention to an empire that did not endure; and in Canada, French West Africa, and the French Caribbean, scholars tended to focus on proto-national or regional studies. With the rise of Atlantic history, however, new scholarship has begun to conceive of an integrated sphere of French influence encompassing several distant colonial regions as well as the metropolis. Tension persists, however, between those who envision the French Atlantic as a loose grouping of colonial and indigenous societies and those who see the structures of empire as useful tools for gauging the interplay of French designs and native agency.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".