MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205138736 · doi:10.7202/1082143ar

Les relations entre soldats français et Amérindiens : la question de la traite (1683-1763)

2005· article· fr· W4205138736 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Arnaud Balvay

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches amérindiennes au Québec · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignMichigan State UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CambridgeUniversity of South CarolinaSmithsonian InstitutionLouisiana State UniversityUniversity of OxfordCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityBrown UniversityHarvard UniversityUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En Louisiane et au Pays d’en Haut, les interactions entre Amérindiens et soldats français au XVIIIe siècle étaient nombreuses et multiples. Cet article étudie la nature, le rôle et les réalités de leurs échanges matériels en utilisant les différentes sources disponibles : documents d’archives, ouvrages imprimés ou encore rapports de fouilles archéologiques. Après avoir énuméré les différents produits échangés et déterminé l’utilisation qui en était faite, l’auteur aborde la manière dont la traite était organisée. Le rôle prééminent des officiers est mis en avant ainsi que celui, plus modeste, des soldats. Il ressort de cette analyse qu’il existait de réelles interdépendances, qui modifient les habitudes de chacun et qui participent à la solidarité existant entre les soldats français et leurs voisins autochtones.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches amérindiennes au QuébecSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207