Bibliographic record
Abstract
Masterminded by Jesuit Superior Paul Le Jeune, the imposition of both Francisation and conversion through Jesuit education initiatives had a significant impact on the Innu and Wendat nations in the seventeenth century. Yet, the extent to which the Jesuit education programmes between 1630 and 1670 clashed with Indigenous culture is still heavily debated amongst historians.This essay will argue that Jesuit education initiatives clashed with Innu and Wendat culture to a greater extent regarding teaching methods and curriculum and yet, will also highlight isolated pockets of accommodationist attitudes. Whilst this essay will also examine the Ursuline nuns, it will primarily analyse Jesuit education methods, curriculum and accommodation towards Innu and Wendat boys. Overall, despite predominantly targeting young boys, the content and approach of Le Jeune’s religious education policies had significant repercussions throughout Innu and Wendat society, regardless of gender or age. [1] Anderson, The Betrayal of Faith: 8-9; Carol Blackburn, Harvest of souls: the Jesuit missions and colonialism in North America, 1632-1650 (Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000), 31. [2] Bruce Trigger, The children of Aataentsic: A history of the Huron People to 1660 (Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1976): 263-4; James P. Ronda, “"We Are Well As We Are": An Indian Critique of Seventeenth-Century Christian Missions,” The William and Mary Quarterly 34, no. 1 (1977), 68; Mairi Cowan, “Education, Francisation, and Shifting Colonial Priorities at the Ursuline Convent in Seventeenth-Century Québec,” The Canadian Historical Review 99, no. 1 (March 2018), 8.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".