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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
S’appuyant sur quatre études de cas, cet article met en évidence les évolutions caractérisant les liens entre la Royal Navy, l’exploration du Pacifique et les modalités de publication durant le long XVIIIe siècle. Il s’intéresse au processus de publication, aux textes en tant que productions matérielles ainsi qu’aux cartes afin de souligner les différents changements induits par les connaissances géographiques telles qu’elles étaient diffusées auprès d’un public lettré. Alors que la Royal Navy se mit à publier des récits de voyage afin de promouvoir son image auprès du public et de légitimer les prétentions impériales, la manière de construire des récits de voyage efficaces fit l’objet d’expérimentations constantes. Ces études de cas comprennent les publications issues de l’expédition menée par le capitaine Narbrough (1669-1671), du périple de William Dampier à bord du Roebuck (1699-1701), du troisième voyage de James Cook (1776-1780) et de l’expédition dirigée par le capitaine Vancouver (1791-1795).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 it