Taché’s Voyageur is not Cooper’s Frontiersman: Differences between Canadian and U.S. Concepts of “Frontier”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Historically, concepts of what constituted a “frontier” developed differently in Canada and the United States. Portrayals in literature of those who inhabited these geographic spaces also are typified by notable differences between the former French and English colonies, yet U.S. literary critics today sometimes conflate the two situations, apparently under the assumption that what applies to the United States pertains in the same way to Canada. The historical reality is far more nuanced. As one example, among the Englishmen who spent time among native cultures, marriage into the culture of “the other” was rare; by contrast, the practice was not at all uncommon among the French who predated the English in Canada. A comparison of two nineteenth-century works—Forestiers et voyageurs by Canadian author Joseph-Charles Taché and The Pioneers by U.S. author James Fenimore Cooper—develops these observations to show how English-origin ideas of “frontier” and “frontiersman” cannot be assumed to apply in discussing Canadian works of literature.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".