MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966206516 · doi:10.7202/1062474ar

Les dossiers personnels des réfugiés de l’île-Royale et de Saint-Pierreet-Miquelon au Ministère de la Marine et des Colonies, 1763–1815

2019· article· fr· W2966206516 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nicolas Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterial Culture Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’étude du sort des réfugiés des colonies françaises d’Amérique après la Guerre de Sept Ans a déjà fait l’objet de recherches fondamentales pour mieux saisir les similarités et les particularités de centaines d’individus. Cependant, on en connaît moins sur les réalités vécues par les réfugiés en provenance des îles Saint-Pierre et Miquelon ; rappelons que ces derniers ont souffert deux conquêtes durant la deuxième moitié du XVIIIe siècle, soit en 1778 et en 1791. Notre recherche a mené au dépouillement de 43 dossiers de la série E (dossiers personnels) conservés par le ministère de la Marine et des Colonies en France. Ces réfugiés bénéficiaient du système royal de la solde de subsistance, mais les dossiers nous apprennent que bon nombre d’entre eux ne se contentaient pas de la solde, et ils nous donnent également des informations sur d’autres personnes. Aux fins de cette étude, les solliciteurs que l’on rencontre dans ces dossiers ont été divisés en quatre catégories : les officiers militaires et subalternes, les fonctionnaires royaux, les habitants exerçant des charges publiques et enfin les familles de réfugiés, dont les demandeurs comptaient plusieurs femmes.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterial Culture ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207