Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploration has always centered on claims: for country, for commerce, for character. Claims for useful scientific knowledge also grew out of exploration’s varied activities across space and time. The history of the Canadian Arctic Expedition of 1913–18 exposes the complicated process of claim-making. The expedition operated in and made claims on many spaces, both material and rhetorical, or, put differently, in several natural and discursive spaces. In making claims for science, the explorer-scientists navigated competing demands on their commitments and activities from their own predilections and from external forces. Incorporating Arctic spaces into the Canadian polity had become a high priority during the era when the CAE traversed the Arctic. Science through exploration—practices on the ground and especially through scientific and popular discourse—facilitated this integration. So, claiming space was something done on the ground, through professional literature, and within popular narratives—and not always for the same ends. The resulting narrative tensions reveal the messy material, political, and rhetorical spaces where humans do science. This article demonstrates how explorer-scientists claimed material and discursive spaces to establish and solidify their scientific authority. When the CAE claimed its spaces in nature, nation, and narrative, it refracted a reciprocal process whereby the demands of environment, state, and discourse also claimed the CAE.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".