Bibliographic record
Abstract
In October 1854, Dr. John Rae returned from the Arctic telling the chilling story that members of the Franklin expedition had resorted to cannibalism in their final days, mutilating the bodies of their dead companions and cooking their remains in kettles. The story, which Rae heard from Inuit who had been passing it along for at least four years, generated anger and sadness among the missing men's families, heated denials and awkward compensatory narratives in daily newspapers, and hysterical racist invectives in Charles Dickens's weekly periodical Household Words. Public responses to Rae's report included anger with the Admiralty for not investigating the King William Island area earlier, criticism of Rae for returning home rather than traveling to the area himself, and logistical questions concerning how the ships had been lost and the primary causes of death. In general, the public accepted that Franklin and his men were long dead, in large part because Rae had returned with personal artifacts that undoubtedly belonged to the missing men. The allegations of cannibalism, however, lead many to question whether Inuit were trustworthy witnesses and whether they accurately understood the remains they found.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".