Bibliographic record
Abstract
In early America, French and Indians communicated more by doing than saying. This chapter focuses on sixteenth-century encounters and the signs that mediated them, as foundational in shaping lasting mutual perceptions and expectations among the groups in colonial America. While acknowledging misunderstandings and language barriers, most early French visitors to the New World reported adequate successes in communicating and obtaining desired information through alternate media. This chapter compares Jacques Cartier’s encounters with the peoples of the Saint Lawrence Valley in Canada with the experience of French Huguenots who founded Charlesfort and Fort Caroline among the Timucua of Florida. Within each section, colonial narratives and visual sources are critically revisited to reconstruct Indigenous practices and meanings and understand the role of touch, place, and gestures in diplomacy and spiritual exchanges. A more complicated understanding of these early communications and Indian expressions of “joy” emerges. The chapter concludes with a look at how different Indigenous signs encountered across the Americas were selected and homogenized by Marc Lescarbot in his <italic>Histoire de la Nouvelle France</italic> (1609) to provide a conceptual and practical foundation for the budding French empire.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".