MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620999497 · doi:10.14430/arctic4649

History, Oral History and Archaeology: Reinterpreting the “Boat Places” of Erebus Bay

2017· article· en· W2620999497 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Douglas R. Stenton, Robert W. Park

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooGovernment of Nunavut
FundersGovernment of Nunavut
KeywordsBayArchaeologyHistorical recordIdentification (biology)HistoryHistoric siteOral historyGeographyBiographyArt historyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historical and archaeological records are examined for three archaeological sites at Erebus Bay, King William Island, associated with the 1845 John Franklin expedition. Comparison of 19th century historical descriptions with archaeological data from sites NgLj-1 and NgLj-3 establishes that the identification of NgLj-1 as the site of the 1859 McClintock “boat place” is incorrect and that NgLj-3 is the actual site. An assessment of 19th century oral historical information and contemporary archaeological data from NgLj-2 supports the conclusion that a ship’s boat from the Franklin expedition was once located at the site, but its identification as the second “boat place” discovered by Inuit in 1861 is problematic. The study underscores interpretive risks associated with uncritical acceptance of historical and oral historical accounts and the importance of archaeological research in the reconstruction of events surrounding the fate of the Franklin expedition.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207