MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7163512186 · doi:10.56078/motifs.1750

« A social mode of conquering the wilderness » : les paradoxes de la sociabilité dans les récits d’exploration de Thomas Nuttall et Henry Rowe Schoolcraft

2025· article· fr· W7163512186 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laurence Machet

Bibliographic record

VenueMotifs · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Geography and Geographical Thought
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsROWEFrontierWildernessVerisimilitude

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suite à la vente de la Louisiane par Napoléon en 1803, les territoires à l’ouest du Mississippi excitent convoitise et curiosité et motivent le financement de grandes expéditions. Mais ces nouveaux territoires de l’Union attirent également des explorateurs individuels désireux de découvrir et de faire partager les curiosités d’un environnement encore relativement peu exploité. C’est ainsi qu’en 1818-1819 l’Arkansas est exploré, lors d’expéditions séparées, par deux hommes, l’Américain Henry Rowe Schoolcraft et le Britannique Thomas Nuttall. Confrontés à un espace où les colons américains vivent encore dans des conditions rudimentaires et coexistent avec populations indigènes, colons français et canadiens, les deux hommes vont faire l’expérience de différentes pratiques de sociabilité qui sont autant de témoignages de la diversité culturelle de ce front pionnier. Cet article se propose d’examiner la manière dont ces deux voyageurs appréhendent, apprécient ou rejettent les formes de sociabilité auxquelles ils sont mêlés dans le microcosme de cette frontier society.

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)0.002
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.032
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.309 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMotifsSame topicHistorical Geography and Geographical ThoughtFrench-language works237,207