MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283226412 · doi:10.1017/s0032247403002924

<i>Hafgerdingar</i>: a mystery from the <i>King's Mirror</i> explained

2003· article· en· W2283226412 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolar Record · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadio Wave Propagation Studies
Canadian institutionsResearch ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsPhenomenonSubmarineStormHistoryGeologyEvent (particle physics)MeteorologyGeographyOceanographyPhilosophyPhysicsEpistemologyAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The medieval King's Mirror describes Iceland and Greenland with a scientific accuracy that is remarkable. One of the very few exceptions is the hafgerdingar in the Greenland Sea. The term translates as ‘sea hedges,’ within which a mariner may become trapped at great peril. Many have believed that a real event was being described, although none of the proposed explanations has been totally satisfactory. The most common view currently is based on Steenstrup (1871), who explained the phenomenon as a tidal wave following a submarine earthquake. A simpler and more consistent theory is developed here: that the hafgerdingar are an optical phenomenon, specifically, a superior mirage. Such mirages, quite common in the polar regions, can produce an appearance fully consistent with the original description, as illustrated by several photographs and a computer simulation. Even the peril to seafarers has been corroborated, in the sense that such a mirage is frequently followed by a storm.

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.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.205
Teacher spread0.188 · 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