J.-P. Frénais’s Sabotage of Frances Brooke’s Colonial Agenda in <i>The History of Emily Montague</i> : The “Province of Quebec” Viewed from Paris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critics and historians who have used J.-P. Frénais’s translation of Frances Brooke’s The History of Emily Montague (1769) have not recognized how much he changed Brooke’s agenda for transforming Canadians into loyal, English-speaking, Anglican subjects of George III. Her book, often considered the first Canadian novel, was published midway between the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that established the “Province of Quebec” and the 1774 Québec Act that formalized many of the accommodations that Governors James Murray and Guy Carleton had made in implementing the Proclamation. This article examines sensitive points where Frénais made cuts, additions, and rewrote passages to blunt Brooke’s agenda: the value of colonies, her boosterism for Canada, the loyalty of Canadians to the new regime, political rights, and religious toleration. Frénais’s changes were apparently not based on any special knowledge of Canada but on tensions in France itself and censorship requirements, making them an unstudied witness to French reactions to the loss of Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".