MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162040063 · doi:10.82308/5799

Black slavery, historians and textbooks: A study of the representation of enslaved people of African descent in Quebec's historiography and history textbooks

2021· dissertation· en· W7162040063 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susanne Roethlisberger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicColonialism, slavery, and trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoriographyNewspaperRepresentation (politics)NarrativeArgument (complex analysis)Benignity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis studies how L’Esclavage au Canada Français: Histoire et Conditions de l’Esclavage, written by Quebec historian Marcel Trudel in 1960, influenced the representation of slavery in Quebec’s historiography, newspaper articles and textbooks since 1960. Textbook studies typically refer to Quebec’s national narrative in abstract terms and rarely discuss how national historians influenced slavery’s representation in textbooks. I show that Trudel’s argument about slavery’s relative benignity in French Canada dehumanized enslaved people while humanizing their bondage. His argument was based on a comparison of enslaved people’s living conditions with the French Antilles and what is now the United States. This comparison became central to the scholarly debate and provided a blueprint for the narratives offered in textbooks and newspaper articles, which centred slaveholders and statistics rather than the experiences of enslaved people. Black history in the 1990s and early 2000s reversed this tendency and contributed to a limited introduction of Black voices within newspapers and textbooks

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0150.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicColonialism, slavery, and tradeFrench-language works237,207