Chapter One. Review Of Literature On The Jesuit Missions To Japan And New France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For over three centuries, scholars have studied the early Jesuit missions to Japan and New France.Academic works on the Japanese mission were originally produced by westerners, who were joined by Japanese scholars at the end of the nineteenth century.Scholarly studies of the Canadian mission have been made in France and North America since the eighteenth century.Based on sixteenth-and seventeenth-century sources, modern students have developed their perspectives on the Jesuit missions.Although much has been written and published on these two missionary fields, there is room for further research.For instance, the Japanese mission, which provides both European and non-European perspectives, is overlooked by Canadianists.An historiographical overview of the Roman Catholic mission in Japan during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries will demonstrate the need for revision. A. Historiography of the Jesuit Mission to JapanThe academic studies about the Christian missions in Japan can be divided into five groupings, of which four are western and one, Japanese.The first group consists of clerical editors of missionary documents to the end of the eighteenth-century.The second includes nineteenthand early twentieth-century westerners, the first ones to attempt modern historical writing on this subject.The third group, in the twentieth century, consists of specialists in ecclesiastical archives.In the fourth category is a broader spectrum of western students, mainly of the second half of the twentieth century.Finally a fifth group includes Japanese scholars who balanced western interpretations with their own analyses of the Japanese aspects of missionary history. The Eighteenth CenturyAlthough publications on the mission in Japan began as early as the seventeenth century, most of these works in the first group, includingThis is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc-by-nc License.T.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.005 |
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".