MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735438606 · doi:10.1017/s0032247417000298

Captain William Adams senior: whaling Master

2017· article· en· W2735438606 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hugh M. Begg, John Watson

Bibliographic record

VenuePolar Record · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMaritime and Coastal Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhalingArcticThe arcticReputationFur tradeRegentHistoryOceanographyArchaeologyLawPolitical scienceEconomic historyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Captain William Adams (1837–1890) was one of the exceptional whaling masters who sailed from Dundee in Scotland. This paper uses primary sources to confirm his reputation not only as a whaler but also as an adventurous explorer and wealthy businessman. He became outstandingly successful with Alexander Stephen & Sons, the Dundee shipping company that pioneered the use of auxiliary powered vessels for use in sealing in Labrador and fishing for whales in the Davis Strait and beyond. His first command was the Arctic in 1868, and his reputation was such that he was chosen by Albert Hastings Markham as his mentor in gaining experience for polar exploration. The unfortunate loss of the Arctic in Regent Sound in 1875 did no damage to this reputation and Adams was made Master of the newly built flagship of the company's fleet, the Arctic II. In 1883, by then a rich man, Adams became his own Master with the purchase of the Maud. In 1890, the vessel was returning to Dundee from Arctic waters when Captain Adams, who was accompanied by his son also William Adams (1869–1942) acting as Mate, was taken fatally ill, dying at Thurso in Caithness.

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)0.002
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0880.016

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolar RecordSame topicMaritime and Coastal ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207