The Vincent-Picard Family's Investments: Wendat Wealth and Notarized Contracts in the Mid-Nineteenth Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In the nineteenth century, several Wendat families from Jeune-Lorette earned comfortable livings producing moccasins, snowshoes, and other traditional goods manufactured for sale on capitalist markets. In writing about these families, historians have neglected their creation and management of wealth, such as Wendat couple Marguerite Vincent La8inonkie and Paul Picard Honda8onhont's investment in the notary-based credit market. Between the 1830s and the 1860s, the couple lent large sums at interest to their French Canadian neighbours in the rural region immediately north of Québec City. The Picard-Vincent family's wealth management is evidence not of economic marginalization but rather of Indigenous affluence, of a family attuned to and able to capitalize on changing religious and market conditions, and of class formation in one First Nations community Abstract: Au XIXe siècle, plusieurs familles wendates de Jeune-Lorette gagnent confortablement leur vie en produisant des mocassins, des raquettes et d'autres produits traditionnels destinés à être vendus sur les marchés capitalistes. En écrivant sur ces familles, les historiens ont négligé la création et la gestion de richesse, comme l'investissement dans le marché du crédit notarial du couple wendat Marguerite Vincent La8inonkie et Paul Picard Honda8onhont. Entre les années 1830 et 1860, le couple prête à intérêt d'importantes sommes à ses voisins canadiens-français de la région rurale située au nord de Québec. La gestion des avoirs de la famille Picard-Vincent témoigne non pas d'une marginalisation économique, mais plutôt d'une prospérité autochtone, d'une famille en phase avec l'évolution des conditions religieuses et du marché et capable d'en tirer profit, ainsi que de la formation de classes sociales au sein d'une communauté des Premières Nations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".