MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400770822 · doi:10.7202/1112144ar

Course et corsaires à l’île Royale durant la deuxième moitié du XVIII siècle

2023· article· fr· W4400770822 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicolas Landry

Bibliographic record

VenuePort Acadie Revue interdisciplinaire en études acadiennes · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce texte brosse un portrait de la course et des corsaires oeuvrant à l’île Royale (Cap-Breton) durant deux conflits coloniaux de la deuxième moitié du XVIIIe siècle entre la France et l’Angleterre. Il s’agit non seulement d’examiner le fonctionnement de cette activité maritime, mais aussi de tester l’hypothèse voulant qu’elle soit orchestrée par une microsociété composée d’administrateurs coloniaux, d’officiers militaires, de marchands-armateurs, de capitaines de navires et d’équipages. On démontrera qu’à l’instar de la pêche et du commerce maritime, ces acteurs s’associent, mais parfois se confrontent en vertu d’enjeux de partage des bénéfices de la course. De manière plus précise, disons que nous décortiquons les problématiques fondamentales que constituent alors la menace des corsaires anglais croisant au large de Louisbourg, les pertes françaises, la gestion et le bilan des prises par les Français, leurs processus de vente et le sort des prisonniers. Le dépouillement archivistique permet également d’en apprendre davantage sur des questions secondaires, tels le trajet des navires anglais capturés, leurs équipages, les cargaisons, les armateurs et, finalement, le sort des blessés et les pertes de vie.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.004

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 venuePort Acadie Revue interdisciplinaire en études acadiennesSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207