Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines a number of Canadian Captivity and Exploration journals dating from Radisson's account of his captivity in 1652 to the investigation of the West Coast by the naturalist David Douglas in 1826. The examination attempts to reveal these early journal writers not only as men undertaking a specific physical task, but as authors reflecting the spirit of their enterprise in their journals. The genre of the travel journal reflects the literary spirit of the age in which they were written; sometimes allied to it, and at times quite antithetical to it. Each journal exposes an individual, uniquely aware of his position in time and place, attempting to express a novel experience in terms familiar to himself and his readers. The result is not always satisfying from a literary point of view, but then the criterion of the thesis has not been stylistically based,but has been primarily interested in revealing the individual in his particular endeavour. The results are not consistent nor conclusive, but the examination of the journal, which is the lasting testimony of physical trial, uncovers a fresh literary genre which is usually investigated only by the historian or the geographer. The thesis is divided into two primary sections: chapter two, which deals with the Captivity journals of John Tanner, Alexander Henry, John Jewitt and Pierre Radisson; and chapter three which investigates the Exploration journals of Radisson, Henry Kelsey, William Cormack, David Douglas, Alexander Mackenzie, David Thompson and Samuel Hearne. The introductory chapter gives some background to the genre of the travel journal from the period of Richard Hakluyt to the esoteric world of Science Fiction. The nature of heroic endeavour and the position of the travel journal as source material for authors is also briefly discussed. In handling a subject which refuses to be limited to any one discipline, nothing conclusive can be stated. However, it seems important to isolate the travel journal in its attempt to describe the human condition. The environment and terms are not usually associated with literature, and yet the genre manages, unexpectedly, to point up those universal themes so essential to all creative writing.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".