MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7075730794

Postcolonial Perspectives on Early Modern Canada: Champlain’s <i>Voyages de la Nouvelle France</i> (1632)

2012· article· fr· W7075730794 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostcolonialism (international relations)ColonialismPostcolonial literatureAmbivalenceNarrativePower (physics)Identity (music)AlterityBattle
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The early modern dimension of francophone postcolonialism has yet to be fully explored. This paper adds historical depth to postcolonial studies by applying post-colonial theory to an early seventeenth-century French colonial text: Samuel de Champlain’s <i>Voyages de la Nouvelle France</i> (1632). A postcolonial reading of Champlain’s <i>Voyages</i> reveals the ambivalence latent in a text traditionally seen as a straightforward narrative of the coming of French civilization to the Americas. After evaluating the applicability of postcolonial theory to works such as Champlain’s <i>Voyages</i>, discussion focuses on an episode from the text in which, on the eve of a battle against the Iroquois, Champlain has a dream predicting the defeat of the enemy by his Huron allies. As the author had previously dismissed, with sceptical superiority, the Amerindian faith in portentous dreams, this apparent shift in cultural allegiance raises interesting questions. Postcolonialism’s insights into colonial power relations can shed new light on Champlain’s complex relationship with his Amerindian allies and on the identity issues faced by colonizers in ‘white settler’ colonies. This paper traces Champlain’s transformation from Frenchman in Canada to incipient French-Canadian, and ultimately tests the limits of taking a postcolonial perspective on the early modern.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)Same topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207