A comparative analysis of the Su-pung-er and Bayne testimonies related to the Franklin expedition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT During Charles Francis Hall's second Arctic expedition (1864–1869) to find survivors and/or documents of Sir John Franklin's 1845 Northwest Passage expedition, two separate Inuit testimonies were recorded of a potential burial vault of a high-ranking officer. The first testimony was provided by a Boothia Inuk named Su-pung-er. The second testimony was documented by Captain Peter Bayne who, at the time, was employed by Hall. To date the vault has not been found. Recently, both the HMSErebusand HMSTerrorhave been located. The discovery of these vessels was made possible, in part, by Inuit testimony of encounters with and observations of the Franklin expedition. The findings of theErebusandTerrorhave significantly bolstered the view that the Inuit accurately reported their observations and interactions with the Franklin crew. The purpose of this paper is to publish in their entirety Hall's notes from conversations with Su-pung-er focused on the vaults and to compare these observations to those reported in the Bayne testimony. It is our hope that in so doing the final major archaeological site of the Franklin expedition may be located.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".