MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985353608 · doi:10.1080/00822884.2019.1679487

Cartographical Perspectives on the Evolution of Fisheries in Newfoundland’s Grand Banks Area and Adjacent North Atlantic Waters in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries

2019· article· en· W2985353608 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kieran Rankin, Poul Holm

Bibliographic record

VenueTerrae Incognitae · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingFisheryGeographyContinental shelfAtlantic WorldArchaeologyHistoryAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the turn of the sixteenth century, John Cabot and his successors discovered abundant fish stocks in the north west Atlantic waters near Newfoundland. This article accounts for how sixteenth- and seventeenth-century mapping provide another strand of evidence that supplement our knowledge of the subsequent Iberian, French, and British fisheries. Such cartography exhibited significant mutations and innovations in rendering fishing locations, and illustrating fishing practices and fish species. Fishermen’s knowledge must have informed such mapping. The innovation of hydrographical indicators in esthetically appealing maps recognized from an early stage the status of the Grand Banks as a globally important feature of submarine topography. More refined and accurate delineations of its submarine plateaus and other adjacent continental shelves closely followed the development of fishing activities, encompassing both Newfoundland’s nearshore and the Grand Banks themselves. Furthermore, such cartography reflected transformative and reciprocal relationships with commerce and inter-state politics across the North Atlantic.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTerrae IncognitaeSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207