MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000819137 · doi:10.14430/arctic461

Eastern Arctic Kayaks: History, Design, Technique, by John D. Heath and E. Arima, with contributions by John Brand, Hugh Collings, Harvey Golden, H.C. Petersen, Johannes Rosing, and Greg Stamer

2010· article· en· W2000819137 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Keld Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt historyArcticThe arcticArtHistoryOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Editors Heath and Arima are well known to most kayakers, scholars, and scientists around the world studying traditional and modern Inuit kayaks.They have worked together for over 20 years on Eastern Arctic Kayaks, and the result is truly an important contribution to kayak studies.It cannot be said that this is the book; nevertheless, their numerous lists of articles and the two classics The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America (Adney and Chapelle, 1964) and Skinboats of Greenland (Petersen, 1986) provide most of what is to be said about kayaks, their form and function, history, and technique.E. Arima is known from several articles about the kayak, and particularly for Inuit Kayaks in Canada (1987) and Contributions to Kayak Studies, which he edited in 1991.John Heath died in 2003 at the age of 80, and it is sad to realize that he did not see the final result of his and E. Arima's exceptional co-operation.In memory of John Heath, a warm preface was written by Duncan R. Winning OBE, honorary president of both the Scottish Canoe Association and the Historic Canoe and Kayak Association.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.009

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207