Troublesome Trials: How a Parisian Legal Practitioner Disrupted the Order of New France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1740, at Quebec’s highest court, a Native woman openly challenged the authority of her alleged master. Such direct challenges to hierarchy were rare in New France, but not for the individual who represented the plaintiff, Jacques Nouette de la Poufellerie. He hailed from a family of advocates in the Parlement of Paris, an important counterweight institution to monarchical power in France. During a brief but action-packed stay in the colony, Nouette represented more than one hundred parties before Intendant Gilles Hocquart ordered Nouette’s departure in 1743. Even when he did not win his cases, Nouette disrupted the colonial order through his practice of law. Employing ardent oral argument, Nouette questioned two important social institutions: slavery and marriage. His growing clientage cluster, furthermore, threatened the colony’s hierarchical order. In his outspoken approach toward both military and ecclesiastical authorities, Nouette was distinct from the colony’s other legal representatives. Unlike their counterparts in other early modern settings, Quebec’s professional legal representatives did not emerge as spokespeople for the public until the nineteenth century. The exceptional case of troublesome Nouette illuminates a paternalistic approach to law and power in New France.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".