Bibliographic record
Abstract
The writing of historical polar exploration in the English-speaking academy has undergone a substantial shift in the past twenty years, to the point where it may be safe to declare that the once-dominant triumphal and hagiographical style, inherited from the nineteenth century, has breathed its last. The explorer as depicted in this tradition has become a figure of fun in current discourse, easily recognizable in the contours of caricature. Sherrill Grace, for example, presents for our inspection "courageous men battling a dangerous, hostile, female terra incognita to prove their masculinity and the superior force of their technology" whose fate is to "die nobly in struggle, or to map, claim, name, and control unstructured space, even if only on paper." It is all too simple to dismiss these aims in an era with less palpable sympathy for them. Instead, many current writers have chosen the more difficult approach of grounding these explorers in appropriate political, social, and cultural contexts, and subsequently uncovering the rationale behind their beliefs and practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".