French St. Louis: Landscape, Contexts, and Legacy ed. by Jay Gitlin, Robert Michael Morrissey and Peter J. Kastor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: French St. Louis: Landscape, Contexts, and Legacy ed. by Jay Gitlin, Robert Michael Morrissey and Peter J. Kastor Alice J. Strange Gitlin, Jay, Robert Michael Morrissey, and Peter J. kastor, eds. French St. Louis: Landscape, Contexts, and Legacy. UP of Nebraska, 2021. ISBN 978-1-4962-0684-8. Pp. 319. This volume assembles ten essays from a 2014 symposium commemorating the 250th anniversary of the founding of St. Louis. The city grew from an eighteenth-century village in the mid-Mississippi Valley, inhabited by settlers and traders from New France. These French colonists and their descendants engaged in a wide network of activities, documented in archival sources and brought to light in this work. The colony was not officially approved by French authorities. Being located far from imperial control, the St. Louis French settlers could make local decisions more freely. Since they were vastly outnumbered by the Indigenous population, the French devised practices that served the interests of both parties. They maintained good relations with Native Americans by trading European goods for their furs and bestowing additional gifts on them to foster peace. In daily life, clothing styles and adornment conveyed social information, according to letters, wills, and estate inventories. Physical appearance functioned as an indication of status and identity among the French and their Indigenous neighbors. The beads, body coloring, and hairstyles worn by Native Americans told of their roles and achievements. The French elite class, consisting of the colony’s founding families, possessed elegant clothing and household goods from Europe. This group intermarried, controlled commercial interests, and maintained contacts with distant family members. Wealthy St. Louis residents visited relatives and sent children to be educated in New France by means of waterways from St. Louis to Montréal and Québec. The colonial era ended with the Louisiana Purchase, shortly after France sent its last prefect to Louisiana in 1804. The prefect accumulated a valuable trove of personal papers before carrying out his final duty, the ceremonial transfer of the Louisiana Territory to the United States. Although no structures survive from the French regime, a visualization of the 1804 village has been created by a National Park Service team using computer-generated technology. Dimensions and layout of the structures were taken from surveys, land records, and maps. This three-dimensional digital rendering may be seen in the museum beneath the Gateway Arch National Park in St. Louis. Under American control, St. Louis continued to maintain a strong French identity. A French-language newspaper, La Revue de l’Ouest, established in 1854, contains notices for dozens of French shops and services. French-speaking free people of color, less well-known than their counterparts in Louisiana, had lived and prospered in St. Louis since the early days of the colony. They maintained their culture throughout the nineteenth century. By1860, St. Louis rivaled New Orleans in population and surpassed it in industrial activity. With a thriving manufacturing sector, St. Louis became a crossroads of commerce and profited greatly by supplying goods to [End Page 184] homesteaders heading west. To the present day, an array of organizations and events sustains the French heritage of St. Louis. This work is highly recommended for its innovative discussions of French St. Louis’s contributions to American life. It will appeal to all readers interested in the French history of the American Midwest. [End Page 185] Alice J. Strange Southeast Missouri State University, emerita Copyright © 2022 American Association of Teachers of French
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.013 |
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".