Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT During January 1911 two separate expeditions came ashore within ten days of each other in Antarctica. Both were hoping to achieve the South Pole. Robert Falcon Scott's decision to establish his British Antarctic Expedition's winter quarters on Ross Island close to routes explored on his first Antarctic expedition was signalled in advance. Scott had received notification of the Norwegian Roald Amundsen's intention to head for Antarctica but did not know where he planned to land. At 00.05 am on 4 February 1911 the British expedition's vessel Terra Nova unexpectedly came across Amundsen's Fram moored to the ice edge in the Bay of Whales. 14 hours later Terra Nova departed, taking news of Amundsen's location and plans, to deliver to Scott. For those on Terra Nova who kept diaries, the event filled days surrounding the encounter spurred the recording of thoughts, emotions and conversations as well as descriptions: eye witness accounts, allowing us to gain an appreciation of the situation as it was. This material from the British side, together with letters, and diary entries from earlier in the voyage, reveals a more complex account than do expedition narratives published subsequently by several of the participants. Terra Nova's passage along the edge of the Ross Ice Shelf in February 1911 had, in fact, come close to being cancelled. Terra Nova's commander as instructed by Scott was heading for Balloon Bight on 3 February, not the Bay of Whales. Even the ship's departure after a short stay, with everyone still on board, became a matter for intense debate. In addition, the generally very positive attitude of the British towards the Norwegians as expressed in diaries hardened subsequently, at least for some. This paper's focus is on the responses of those on Terra Nova to the encounter. Those of the Norwegians are being explored by other researchers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".