"En escrivant à une personne, je parle à plusieurs”: Responding to Readers in the Jesuit Relations from New France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En escrivant une personne, je parle plusieurs":Responding to Readers in the Jesuit Relations from New France Micah TrueIt is common in scholarship on the Jesuit Relations-reports from French missionaries in what is now eastern Canada that were published annually in Paris from 1632 to 1673 and are now highly valued as source of historical and ethnographic information-to note that the texts reached a large and enthusiastic readership.Allan Greer, for example, characterized their reception this way: "The appearance of each successive volume was eagerly anticipated in some circles, as priests, nuns, and pious laypeople throughout France read them avidly" ( 14). 1 Readers' reactions to the texts have generally not, however, been considered among the forces that shaped subsequent instalments in the series.Instead, scholars have tended to emphasize the writerly work of Jesuits on the ground in New France (Pouliot 18; Greer 14), while occasionally acknowledging that editors in Paris could also shape the Relations (Wroth 118; Melzer 83).Such factors surely were very important in determining the form and content of the texts, but this article suggests that they do not tell the whole story.Drawing on the available clues about how the missionary authors understood and reacted to their audience, I argue here that the desires of metropolitan French readers-whether expressed or merely presumed by the Jesuits-also ought to be considered a key part of the process that produced the annual Relations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".