“Notorious Abuse,” “Traditious Ignorance,” and “Ambitious Incroachment” in Seventeenth-Century Dutch, English, and French Maps of North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In consideration of Richard Daniel’s alarmed discourse found in the text accompanying his map of the English empire in America (1679), one must investigate the supposedly offending French, English, and Dutch maps of the second half of the seventeenth century for North America and, in particular, the region of the Atlantic coastline and the rhetorical devices of possession found on or in these geographical works. In addition to looking at territorial boundaries, one should also make note of armorial bearings, ships with naval ensigns, toponyms and their placement on the territory, dedicatory cartouches, legends with geographical or historical information, native scenes, and symbols for settlement. In addition to attention to possible constraints on or from the map trade, one must consider the correspondence between colonial officials and their respective governments regarding boundaries, encroachment, sovereignty, or the need for maps with a particular focus on the North American coastline. This correspondence reflects the state’s point of view, which in turn was often manifested on maps and in geographical works. Interestingly intertwined with this outspoken sense of rightful possession were the contemporary claims from some quarters that the cartographic enterprise of the late seventeenth century now embraced an empirical approach, as well as the seemingly opposing thread of the economic realities of the print trade, which often used old copper plates with little to no cartographic revision, so that long after political, economic, or military actions resulted in an “adjustment” in possession, printed maps, atlases, and other geographical works still reflected earlier circumstances.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".