MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W267517404

The Creation of Dr. Kane

2008· article· en· W267517404 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Philosophical Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Exploration and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticSpace AgeAdministration (probate law)WitnessPrestigeSpace (punctuation)NavyThe arcticPolitical scienceLawHistoryAeronauticsEngineeringGeologyComputer scienceOceanography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today is somewhat difficult to understand why, in the mid-nineteenth century, nations were so obsessed with arctic exploration. It was a vastly dangerous enterprise that yielded almost nothing of practical gain, and by the 1820s was amply clear that, even if the fabled did exist, would be impractical because of the dangers of arctic navigation. It was also clear that any arctic that could be claimed would be largely useless; no settlers were going to homestead amidst polar bears and glaciers. The arctic was and remains remarkably desolate: Why botiier to explore it? One way to understand the arctic mania of the 1840-185Os is to compare to the of the 1950-196Os and the continuing role of space flight today. According to Roger Launius, chair of the American Space History Program at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), there were five reasons America began its manned space program: scientific discovery, economic possibilities, military security and applications, prestige, and survival of the species (the potential to inhabit other planets). Of these reasons, however, prestige was by far the greatest. The U.S. government created NASA in response to the Soviet Union's space program, which in 1957 rocketed to the forefront of the space race with the successful launching of the first satellite, Sputnik. Two years later they went farther, crash landing a payload on the moon. John F. Kennedy made space exploration a priority for his administration. In a 1961 speech he declared that the United States should commit itself to achieving the goal... of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth, and the Apollo space missions began soon after. They were a direct challenge to the Soviet Union, a bold promotion of American prestige, and every bit as dangerous and superfluous as any arctic adventure of the antebellum period. Launius noted that America continues its space program to this day because it raises our stature as a people, as a civilization, as a nation. That the U.S. space program is the best in the world is a sign of the nation's prestige: That's why we started flying them in 1961, and that's why, all other things being countervailing... we will not stop flying them now. He went on to note that in the twenty-first century, Nations that want to establish their credibility in the world, like China, are seeking to do this, in part, by flying astronauts.1 Prestige drove and continues to drive the exploration of space. Prestige, and to a lesser degree all the other reasons Launius listed, also fueled the drive for arctic exploration in the antebellum period and caused the United States to launch its own arctic exploring expedition in 1850. A brief history of arctic exploration is necessary to explain how a series of quixotic quests for a lost explorer and a mythical sea could create a sensation great enough to make Dr. Kane one of the foremost celebrities of his age. It is difficult to determine exactly when European exploration of the polar northwest began. Norse legend always included some notion of these lands, and archeological evidence shows that Scandinavian groups settled in Greenland and far-northern North America as early as the tenth century.2 The first modern exploration of the American arctic was by English explorer John Cabot. He traveled to present-day Newfoundland in 1496 and 1497, just four years after Columbus sailed to the New World. Cabot's son, Sebastian, capitalized on his father's discoveries by starting the Muscovy Company in Bristol, and as early as 1502, Bristol natives sailed to this new found land to catch and dry fish for export back to Europe.3 Martin Frobisher furthered arctic discovery by reaching Ellesmere Island and what is now called Frobisher Bay during a series of explorations in search of the Northwest Passage in 1576-1578. The British crown charged him to seek out gold and to his great joy he discovered and mined what seemed to be the legendary El Dorado: It was only upon his return to England that he learned that his tons of glistening cargo was fool's gold. …

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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