Back to Cook — The Role of the Hydrographer in Delineating Topography and Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concepts for this paper were formulated during the period April 1975 to March 1976 when I was a member of the Chart Presentation Steering Committee of the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS). This Committee, under the chairmanship of the late E.M. Walsh, was charged with the task of developing a new presentation for Canadian charts to meet the needs of metric conversion and bilingualism. A third requirement was to ensure that where practicable the presentation would agree with the international chart specifications then under development through the North Sea International Chart Commission (NSICC). The initial work of the Committee focussed on methods of showing bathymetry and chart scheming as described in papers given in 1976 [1] [2], Subsequently a decision in principle was reached on the basic concepts to be followed in showing topography and culture on Canadian charts. This paper reviews the historical evolution of how land features have been shown; comments on the inadequacies of the current presentation, then explores the new philosophy and compares it with that developed by the NSICC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".