Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter considers some of the ways in which nonverbal repertoires that had been painstakingly created over two centuries of interaction were creatively mobilized by Indigenous and French individuals in the long seventeenth century to produce culturally-hybrid performances. Opening with the Great Peace of Montreal (1701), the chapter describes the epistemological differences that caused misunderstandings even as Jesuit missionaries and Indian orators skilfully blended visual and verbal metaphors and registers to reach their audiences during religious and diplomatic exchanges. The highly adaptable and multimedia nature of Indigenous verbal art is compared with the efforts of the Jesuits to insert select Indigenous gestures within their orations. Ambivalent feelings towards the unauthentic nature of theatrical performances and competition with Indian <italic>jongleurs</italic> (shamans) limited the missionaries’ ability to harvest the power of Indian oratory. As the French expanded westward and down the Mississippi valley in the second half of the century, they were forced to confront the limits of some of their nonverbal strategies, as demonstrated through the case-study of the calumet. After two centuries of embodied communication, it had become harder to tell “French” apart from “Native” nonverbal devices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".