MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393025536 · doi:10.3917/bubib.377.0085

Aspects de la diffusion éditoriale de l’ Histoire et des Muses de la Nouvelle France de Marc Lescarbot

2023· article· fr· W4393025536 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
François Rouget

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin du bibliophile · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Literary Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The life and career of Marc Lescarbot (1570-1641), born in Vervins, have been extensively studied. They have been examined in monographs as well as critical editions of his books, and they shed light on the nature of his literary project. Particularly, they illuminate the reasons that led him to publish several books on history, on his travels in Acadia, as well as political pamphlets, French translations of religious matters, and books of poems about Canada and Switzerland. Altogether, his published works display his extensive engagement in public life. His most famous books are the Histoire de la Nouvelle France, completed with the poems of Les Muses de la Nouvelle France, that were published together in Paris in three editions (1609, 1611-1612, and 1617-1618). This article presents and examines several manuscript and published documents related to Marc Lescarbot’s career and provides a detailed description and a historical study of the publication of his early editions of the Histoire and Muses de la Nouvelle France. An inventory of known copies of their three original and augmented editions (1609, 1611-1612 and 1617-1618) is also provided.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin du bibliophileSame topicHistorical and Literary AnalysesFrench-language works237,207