Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the ways in which historians of New France are engaging with Atlantic, imperial, and comparative frameworks, as well as theoretical literature to better understand big historical processes such as state and empire formation and sovereignty. It also shows how traditional categories separating political, economic, social, and religious phenomena are breaking down, allowing for a deeper understanding of the ways in which their interactions shaped French imperial expansion. Empire formation depended on both agents and institutions. Going beyond the traditionally narrow conceptions of each, the article examines the widening range of actors who are now considered agents of empire as well as the recent move beyond Church and state to consider other institutions, notably the understudied chartered company. The latter is particularly fruitful for rethinking the relationship among traditionally separate groups of actors and institutions. Resituating the Company of New France in Atlantic, imperial, and comparative frameworks highlights the complex intertwining of religious, political, economic, and social phenomena that was at the heart of French imperialism. The article closes with a brief discussion of the parallels to nineteenth-century railroad corporations and their relationship with the state to highlight the evolving dynamic between states and corporations in a broader chronology. Finally, a number of avenues are proposed for future research into that relationship, for which New France and the French empire are particularly rich sites of inquiry.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".