Bibliographic record
Abstract
The year 2007 marked the beginning of the fourth International Polar Year, another frenzy of big science and circumpolar interest in questions of sovereignty, climate change, resources, and so on. At the same time, in the domain of the humanities, there are a host of re-elaborations of the very discourses of nordicity that seek to bring to light a North that is no longer merely an empty space and passage to elsewhere; rather, it is a North that has become a site and a figure, and a caution and a limit—a problem, in other words. My text proceeds from the unstable ground of this refigured nordicity. In the summer of 2005, I went North to the Mackenzie River basin with the typewritten field journals of Harold Innis. The young Innis had made the same trip in the summer of 1924, and my initial interest was an attempt to retrace his steps and to reflect on the place of North (as margin) in the development of his ideas at that time. Where his abiding concern had been production, innovation, and social relations, my own interest concerned method, writing, and landscape. Nonetheless, as I travelled up the length of the “River of Disappointment,” as Mackenzie called it, a methodological dialogue emerged.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".