MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163505703 · doi:10.1017/s0032247406005596

The memorials on Beechey Island, Nunavut, Canada: an historical and pictorial survey

2006· article· en· W2163505703 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Brian D. Powell

Bibliographic record

VenuePolar Record · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Nunavut
KeywordsNavyConfusionHistoryArcticThe arcticOrder (exchange)GeographyArchaeologyOceanographyPsychologyGeologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes observations made on visits to Beechey Island in 1999, 2002, and 2005. These visits were made in order to examine the memorials on this very important site for Arctic exploration and to make an extensive photographic record of them. Their history and present condition are described. There are some inconsistencies and confusion in the scattered literature concerning their history and this paper seeks to resolve these matters. It is hoped that further investigations to resolve the few remaining problems, will be conducted and that a systematic nomenclature, which is suggested in the paper, will be adopted for the memorials. Restoration, repair, and regular maintenance of the memorials are becoming necessary and appropriate funding for this is required before it is too late. Close regulation of the erection of more modern memorials and burials, some of which, in the author's view, detract from the significance, solemnity, and appearance of the island is desirable. With the growing number of airborne and ship borne travellers and tourists visiting Beechey Island, a degree of supervision may become necessary in order to ensure that the memorials remain intact. Beechey Island is one of the most important heritage locations in Canada and in the history of Arctic exploration by the Royal Navy in the nineteenth century.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolar RecordSame topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207