MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168509495 · doi:10.1017/s003224740400378x

The Admiralty and the Franklin search

2004· article· en· W2168509495 on OpenAlexaff
W. Gillies Ross

Bibliographic record

VenuePolar Record · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
FundersRoyal SocietyGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsParliamentNavyBeaufort scaleGovernment (linguistics)Subject (documents)On boardPlan (archaeology)The arcticLawPolitical scienceManagementHistoryLibrary scienceGeographyOceanographyArchaeologyMeteorologyPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The planning and direction of the British government's efforts to find and rescue Sir John Franklin were carried out in the Admiralty offices on Whitehall by the Board of Admiralty, which comprised six Lords Commissioners and two Secretaries, subject to the ultimate authority of Parliament. The Board worked closely with the Navy's Hydrographer, Francis Beaufort, who was probably the single most influential person involved in the planning. He and the Board utilized advice from various officers who had been on Arctic expeditions, and consulted many organizations and individuals in Britain and abroad on particular aspects of the search.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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