MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026278852 · doi:10.1177/00139160021972405

Antarctica

2000· article· en· W2026278852 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Behavior · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)Space explorationPsychologyEnvironmental ethicsGeographyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This introduction to the special issue traces the history of psychosocial concerns related to Antarctic exploration, from the heroic age of early explorers through the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957 to 1958 to recent and current systematic research projects. The introduction discusses the organization and topics of international psychological investigations in polar stations and summarizes the articles that follow. Living in Antarctica imposes some unusual restrictions as well as opportunities, and it requires psychological adaptation to extreme environmental circumstances. The thrust of previous scientific and popular literature has been to focus on the negative effects of the situation and ignore the positive ones; however, ongoing studies are bringing about a more balanced view. Having an accurate understanding is important not only intrinsically and for appropriate application in the Antarctic itself but also in analogous extreme and unusual environments. These include extended space flight and space habitation, such as the projected voyage to Mars.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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