MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7027626771

Définition et reconstitution de l'espace territorial du nord-est amériquain : la reconstruction de la carte du W8banaki par la toponymie abénakise au Québec Aln8baïwi Kdakina-- notre monde à la manière abénakise

2005· other· en· W7027626771 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToponymyComplementarity (molecular biology)Identity (music)TRACE (psycholinguistics)Onomastics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis relates to the reconstitution and the definition of the Northeast of America's territorial space. The main objective is the reconstruction of the Abenaki's territorial map, one of the aboriginal nations who live in this region. Supported by the essence of identity expressed through the original Abenaki toponymy within le territoire quebecois, it was possible to trace their historical territory, the W8banaki . By examining systematically the historical, cartographical and geographical sources available, it was possible to collect more than 1000 toponyms of Abenaki origin; they referring to more than 800 geographical entities. Based on this gazetteer the toponymic classification was carried based on the toponyms' character; the toponyms were then placed on maps. Related to the presence of Abenaki in various sources, the complementarity of the data established the effective presence of the Abenaki within a definite territory in Quebec according to the historical sources that the European colonists preserved.

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)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.179 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)Same topicGeographic Information Systems StudiesFrench-language works237,207