MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971564492 · doi:10.5860/choice.46-1096

Mapping a continent: historical atlas of North America, 1492-1814

2008· article· en· W1971564492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueChoice Reviews Online · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtlas (anatomy)GeographyCartographyHistoryBiologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In March 1493, Christopher Columbus returned a long voyage to the west, convinced he had reached India. In truth, an immense continent, then absent any map, had blocked his path. A formidable barrier separating Europe Asia, North America became a coveted land, attracting sailors, missionaries, trappers, soldiers and scientists. Seeking not only the Vermilion Sea but also fish, beavers, and precious metals, they crossed rivers and trekked through portages, forests, and mountains. With the help of Indians they unlocked the secrets of this terra incognita. Art, scientific papers, and maps provide essential witness to this quest for knowledge that allowed Columbus, Auchagac, Champlain, Franquelin, Thomspon, Mackenzie, and Lewis and Clark to take the measure of America. For three centuries, motivated by the goal of finding a nautical route to the Pacific Ocean and there the Orient, European explorers surveyed and mapped the large territory, exploring every body of water, the tiniest bays to the greatest rivers, and pushing deeper into the interior. Three hundred years almost to the day after Columbus' first voyage, Alexander Mackenzie reached the Pacific Ocean from Canada, by land, 22 July 1793. In 1805, spurred on by Jefferson, the Lewis and Clark expedition crossed the continent the Missouri-Mississippi delta to where the Columbia River flows into the Pacific Ocean. The continent's measure had been taken.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChoice Reviews OnlineSame topicArchaeology and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207