A nutritional analysis of the food rations Martin Frobisher's second expedition, 1577
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A list of the provisions for the second expedition led by Martin Frobisher was produced on 26 March 1577, for 115 men and 18 months. These plans contain an extraordinarily detailed food procurement list: the quantity of each food, the cost of each item, and how the rations were to be allocated. The subject of this paper is a nutritional analysis of the rations on this list. It is assumed that the March list is simply an 18-month version of what was put in place for the eventual seven-month expedition. The individual foods for the expedition were grouped into four basic meal plans, rotated throughout the journey at four ‘meat days’ and three ‘fast days’ per week. Since the amount of each food allocated per person per day was indicated, the quantities of each were able to be converted into modern measures, based on foods thought to be near equivalents to those in Frobisher's time, and the caloric and nutrient intake calculated. The results show a fairly monotonous diet of about 4000 calories on fast days to 5000 calories on meat days. Except for a virtual absence of vitamin C, the diet seems nutritionally adequate over short runs. Inadequacies could occur quickly if some foodstuffs went bad, or if members of the crew were depleted of crucial nutrients, such as ascorbic acid, before the voyage began. On longer journeys this diet would have been inadequate, as it is doubtful if beer (29% of the calories) or butter and cheese (most of the vitamin A) could have lasted for more than six months. An examination of 18 Arctic voyages between Frobisher's first (1576) and that of James (1631–1632) demonstrates that they had similar foodstuffs on board, and that few suffered appreciable dietary problems unless they were gone for more than six months.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".