Rethinking Colonization: A Case Study of the North American Martyrs and the Middle Ground
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For thousands of years, Native Americans lived in North America, including the Great Lakes region. In this specific area, they would create their own unique customs, traditions, and ways of living. In addition, they would experience times of great turbulence, as violence, slavery, and torture all existed in this region. In this midst of this complex sociopolitical world, the French entered. They colonized this area and called it New France. They called the Great Lakes area, the pays d’en haut. Both the French and the Native Americans living in New France and the pays d’en haut learned to accommodate and adapt themselves to one another. The Jesuits, an order of Catholic priests who came to New France as missionaries, came alongside their French companions. Of these Jesuit missionaries, I will focus on the North American Martyrs, a group of six Jesuit missionaries and their two lay companions. By focusing on three case studies within the North American Martyrs and utilizing their writings in The Jesuit Relations, I will show how the North American Martyrs are representative of this cultural accommodation that occurred in New France and in the pays d’en haut. In addition, my primary sources will be supported through extensive secondary research. By doing so, this will shed light on the development of this cultural accommodation, early modern globalization, agency in colonial and Native American historiographies, the differences in European colonization, the reality of pre-Columbian North America, and early modern Jesuit missionaries and evangelization techniques. Ultimately, the goal is to bring the North American Martyrs back to the historiographical forefront and to show that the North American Martyrs are unique amongst early modern Jesuit missionaries given their cultural, social, political, religious, linguistic, and economic contexts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".