MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156782382 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.9918

20. The Description to Look Down on All Opposition”: The Remains of HMS St. Lawrence

2018· article· en· W3156782382 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Aaron Styba

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMaritime and Coastal Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueen (butterfly)Opposition (politics)HistoryPatrollingArt historyArchaeologyLawPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In one of the most ignominious wars in history, a combined force of British and Canadian soldiers, sailors and civilians constructed the largest wooden warship ever built in the western hemisphere. Engaged with the Americans in a desperate game of cat-and-mouse upon Lake Ontario, the massive warship HMS St. Lawrence swung the balance of power firmly in favour of the British and thereby hastened the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, bringing the War of 1812 to a sputtering halt.This colossal warship, over 200 feet long, crewed by 700 and carrying 112 cannon, was completed at Kingston, Ontario in little over 9 months. Patrolling Lake Ontario, HMS St. Lawrence immediately caused the Americans to flee to their harbour. Astoundingly, and in a very Canadian fashion, she never fired a shot in combat.After the war ended, years of disrepair and dereliction left HMS St. Lawrence as a hulk of her former self. Sold to a local entrepreneur for a measly £25, she found herself towed to a location near Queen’s University. Mysteriously, she then disappeared from history. After the consideration of several theories, the hope is that this presentation, based upon the research conducted in a joint investigation by Parks Canada, the Marine Museum of the Great Lakes and Queen’s University, will help determine the fate of this “nuclear bomb of her age.”This presentation will outline the fascinating origins of HMS St. Lawrence, how she was archaeological documented, what the investigation tells us, and why investigating naval heritage is a worthy undertaking.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.004

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicMaritime and Coastal ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207