MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Peary reached the pole: the personal story of his assistant

2009· article· en· W2584869593 on OpenAlexaff
P.J. Capelotti

Bibliographic record

VenuePolar Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeudNorth poleReprintArcticHistoryThe arcticArchaeologyGeographyPhysical geographyOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This beautifully produced reprint edition of Donald B. MacMillan’s 1934 paean to his mentor Robert E. Peary arrives just in time for the centennial of Peary’s claim to have reached the geographic North Pole on 6 April 1909. As the writers of the concise introduction point out, it also arrives in the middle of a growing international focus on how climate change is altering both the environment of the Arctic and the human responses to this change. It could even be argued that there is more sustained attention being paid to the High North at this moment than at any time since Peary’s famous feud with fellow American claimant to the North Pole, Frederick A. Cook.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.010

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolar ResearchSame topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207