MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156071502 · doi:10.1081/clt-120025349

Polar Poisons: Did Botulism Doom the Franklin Expedition?

2003· article· en· W2156071502 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B. Zane Horowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Toxicology Clinical Toxicology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrewArcticThe arcticMedicineGeographyHistoryArchaeologyOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1845 the Franklin expedition left London with 2 ships and 134 men on board in an attempt to find the route through the Northwest Passage. The ships were built with state-of-the-art technology for their day, but provisioned with supplies from the lowest bidder. After taking on fresh provisions in the Whalefish Islands, off the coast of Greenland, the entire crew was never heard from again. Graves found on remote Beechey Island indicate that three able-bodied seamen died during the first winter. A note written on a ship's log, later found in a cairn, indicate that the expedition's leader, Sir John Franklin, died during the second winter entrapped on the ice, by which time 24 men had also perished. The remaining crew failed in their attempt to walk out of the Arctic by an overland route. In 1981 Owen Beattie, from the University of Alberta, exhumed the remains of the sailors from the three graves on Beechey Island. Elevated lead levels were found in all three sailors. While lead poisoning has been a leading theory of the cause of the crew's deaths, blamed on the crudely tinned provisions the ships carried with them from England, chronic lead exposure may only have weakened the crew, not necessarily killed them. One of three exhumed sailors also had in his intestine the spores of an unspecified Clostridium species. The theory put forth by this article is that Botulism, type E, which is endemic in the Arctic, may have been responsible for their deaths.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations22
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Toxicology Clinical ToxicologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207