Accounts from 19th‐century Canadian Arctic explorers' logs reflect present climate conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widely perceived failure of 19th‐century expeditions to find and transit the Northwest Passage in the Canadian Arctic is often attributed to extraordinary cold climatic conditions associated with the “Little Ice Age” evident in proxy records. However, examination of 44 explorers' logs for the western Arctic from 1818 to 1910 reveals that climate indicators such as navigability, the distribution and thickness of annual sea ice, monthly surface air temperature, and the onset of melt and freeze were within the present range of variability. The quest for the Northwest Passage through the Canadian archipelago during the 19th century is frequently seen as a vain and tragic failure. Polar exploration during the Victorian era seems to us today to have been a costly exercise in heroic futility, which in many respects it was. This perspective has been reinforced since the 1970s, when paleoclimate reconstructions based on Arctic ice core stratigraphy appeared to confirm the existence of exceptionally cold conditions consistent with the period glaciologists had termed the “Little Ice Age” (Figure 1a), with temperatures more than one standard deviation colder relative to an early 20th‐century mean [Koerner, 1977; Koerner and Fisher, 1990; Overpeck et al., 1998]. In recent years, the view of the Little Ice Age as a synchronous worldwide and prolonged cold epoch that ended with modern warming has been questioned [Bradley and Jones, 1993; Jones and Briffa, 2001 ;Ogilvie, 2001].
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".