MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554257232 · doi:10.34194/geusb.v15.5049

Hans Ø, celebrated island of Nares Strait between Greenland and Canada: from dog-sledge to satellite mapping

2008· article· en· W2554257232 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P.R Dawes, Tapani Tukiainen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyOceanographyIndigenousDanishBayGeographyPopulationArchaeologyBoundary (topology)GeologyPoliticsLawDemographyPolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hans Ø – or Tartupaluk to the indigenous population of North-West Greenland – is a small steeply sided island in Nares Strait at c. 80°50´N. Charted in 1871 and named after Greenlander Hans Hendrik, it is one of five limestone islands forming an integral part of the Greenland Silurian succession. Rising less than 170 m above normally ice-infested waters, the 1.25 km2 island is physiographically far overshadowed by nearby Franklin Ø (Fig. 1). The island’s notoriety results from its placing more or less equidistant between the coasts of Kennedy Channel on the political boundary between Greenland and Canada. For 40 years the rocky patch has been the subject of a dispute be tween the Danish/Greenland and Canadian governments regarding sovereignty rights, an issue that remains unresolved. However, there is mutual understanding between Canada and Denmark that “since the question of sovereignty over the island has not yet been solved no action should be taken by either side which might prejudge the settlement of the issue” (Brückner 1984). Formally, this remains the position today.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Survey of Denmark and Greenland BulletinSame topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207