Économie morale et activité marchande dans le district de Montréal (1791-1815) : l’importance de la confiance et de la réputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette recherche analyse les concepts de confiance et de réputation par l’entremise de procès intentés pour libelle diffamatoire entre les années l791 et 1815 dans le district de Montréal. L’étude montre que la réputation, protégée juridiquement, est un régulateur de l’espace public. Elle contrôle les discours, les correspondances et tout autre écrit qu’un individu pourrait juger diffamants. En plus d’encadrer la liberté d’expression, la réputation structure le marché économique montréalais. Elle se présente comme l’un des moyens mis à la disposition des créditeurs comme des débiteurs pour créer la confiance. Inversement, sa flétrissure compromet l’échange. La réputation sera donc analysée dans ce mémoire comme l’une des formes de régulation sociale des rapports interindividuels au tournant du 19e siècle.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".