MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112520832 · doi:10.7557/13.3076

Helmer Hanssens reiser i isbaksen. Med Roald Amundsen og polene som omdreiningspunkt

2014· article· en· W2112520832 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lena Arekol

Bibliographic record

VenueNordlit · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)NorwegianShadow (psychology)PhilosophyArt historyArtPsychoanalysisPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Helmer Hanssen published his book Gjennem isbaksen. Atten år med Roald Amundsen in 1941. Five years earlier, in 1936, this book had been published in English with the title Voyages of a modern Viking. The Norwegian title of the book may be understood as a reflection of his polar life and almost lifelong relation to Amundsen; while the English title indicates more that Hanssen wanted to emphasis his own solid achievements in the Polar Regions. In earlier history studies Hanssen has been interpreted merely as the loyal assistant of Amundsen and as an eternal deuce. This article represents a new reading of Hanssen’s book up against previously known and unknown sources. This brings on new perspectives on the relation between Hanssen and Amundsen, but also on Hanssen himself, his relationship to his family, his perceptions of the Inuit people and his strong desire to go on a polar expedition. In this article, I argue that being the eternal deuce that is what, was Hanssen’s big chance. Amundsen gave him the possibility to experience pioneering expeditions and to see the world. My point is that Hanssen, even when living in the shadow of Amundsen, had his place in the outer circle of the spotlight.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1190.066

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNordlitSame topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207