Bibliographic record
Abstract
History Martin Frobisher first reported the existence of frozen ground in Baffin Island in 1577 according to Muller (2008). Tsytovich (1966) noted that Russian military reports published in 1642 contain the first mention of frozen ground in Siberia. James Isham reported the presence of frozen ground near Hudson’s Bay in 1749 (Legget, 1966). Karl von Baer stated that the earliest scientific report of the existence of frozen ground was made in a work on the flora of Siberia published as an outcome of the Russian Great Northern Expedition by J. G. Gmelin in 1751 in Göttingen, but skepticism existed in scientific circles into the nineteenth century. The first widespread recognition of the occurrence of frozen ground appears in papers presented to the Royal Geographical Society of London by von Baer (1838a,b). He reported on the presence of frozen ground in Siberia and noted that a merchant named Fedor Shergin sank a well at Yakutsk between 1828 and 1837 and collected temperature measurements from it for Friederich Wrangel. He found that the temperature rose steadily to near 0 °C at 116 m depth from –7.5 °C at a few meters below the surface. von Baer (1838b) noted other locations in Siberia where the ground was permanently frozen. A book prepared by him in 1842, but never published, has recently been made available in German by Tammiksaar (2001). Baer’s text shows that he had already prepared a map of the distribution of permafrost in Siberia whose boundary closely resembles that of later authors. Baer also directed the expeditions of A. T. Middendorff to eastern Siberia, including temperature measurements to 116 m depth in the Shergin well at Yakutsk (Middendorff, 1844) and in other boreholes at locations east of the Yenisei River to the Pacific Ocean. Middendorff’s data show that the permafrost thickness at Yakutsk was 190 m, according to Shiklomanov (2005).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".