MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2504705157 · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-59688-8_4

In Search of Control: Arctic Weather Stations in the Early Cold War

2016· book-chapter· en· W2504705157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthias Heymann

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticPoliticsSovereigntyGeographyThe arcticProxy (statistics)Political scienceMeteorologyLawOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Matthias Heymann discusses the importance of meteorological data from Greenland not only for the successful prosecution of the Allied war effort, but also for support of aviation—both civilian and military—during the Cold War. The US military established and expanded weather observation stations in Greenland during the war, but immediately after, Denmark sought to regain control of the weather stations and their observational data despite a scarcity of resources. However, the US military not only wanted to continue operating these stations, but to build a chain of Arctic weather stations in northern Canada and Greenland. Although Canada and Denmark could not say “no” to the USA, they did work hard to guard their sovereign interests. Investigating the role of Arctic weather stations as contested scientific, political, and military installations, Heymann argues that weather stations not only provided meteorological information—they served as symbols for sovereignty, political, and military control. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooksSame topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207