MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083061062 · doi:10.4000/books.pur.61919

Un otage jugé pour espionnage : le procès Stobo à Montréal (1756)

2014· book-chapter· fr· W3083061062 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stéphane Genêt

Bibliographic record

VenuePresses universitaires de Rennes eBooks · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le capitaine virginien Robert Stobo, devenu otage après la capitulation du fort Necessity (1754), profite de sa captivité au fort Duquesne pour en réaliser un plan qu’il signe. Il parvient à le transmettre au général Braddock. À la suite de la défaite anglaise de la Monongahela, ce plan est retrouvé dans les papiers du général anglais. L’otage détenu à Québec est désormais considéré comme un espion et jugé en tant que tel. Son procès solennel s’ouvre à Montréal en novembre 1756 pour le crime de haute trahison. Le conseil de guerre déclare Stobo coupable et le condamne à avoir la tête tranchée. La peine n’est pourtant jamais appliquée. Avant le procès, Versailles avait en fait envoyé l’ordre de sursis pour toute peine capitale. Le procès de Stobo apparaît donc surtout comme une opération de propagande interne, destinée à rassurer la population d’une colonie, consciente des tensions régionales et de la menace anglaise. Le roi veut montrer localement de la fermeté face à un sujet britannique reconnu coupable d’espionnage tout en limitant par la suspension de la peine, l’impact diplomatique que l’exécution d’un otage pourrait avoir en Europe. Stobo parvient finalement à s’enfuir. En juillet 1759 à Québec, Montcalm est furieux de le retrouver auprès de ses assiégeants.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.160 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePresses universitaires de Rennes eBooksSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207