The Making of a Maritime Explorer: James Cook in Newfoundland, 1762 – 1767
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La cartographie de Terre-Neuve effectuée par James Cook de 1762 à 1767 a été indispensable à ses futures expéditions dans le Pacifique.Ses efforts lui ont valu la réputation de maître navigateur et arpenteur fort qualifié pour le commandement.Certains historiens ont examiné si le commandement de l'exploration du Pacifique aurait pu être confié à quelqu'un d'autre.Bien que cette conclusion soit acceptée par ceux qui ont méticuleusement étudié le capitaine Cook, il s'agit d'une conclusion qui est difficilement reconnue publiquement à l'extérieur du Canada atlantique.In introducing his book, Captain Cook's War and Peace: The Royal Navy Years, 1755-1768, John Robson remarked that "Some writers have asked the question, 'Why was James Cook chosen to lead the Endeavour expedition [into the Pacific in 1768]?'"Robson then suggested that, with a better understanding of Cook's career between 1755 and 1768, the more reasonable questions to ask would be "'Why would the Admiralty have chosen anyone else to lead the expedition?' and 'Who else could they have chosen?'" 1 Robson's point is that Cook's career in the Pacific (which for much of the rest of the world is the only James Cook there is) cannot be understood without reference to his accomplishments during the years that he served in the Royal Navy in North America.Those years were absolutely critical to his training as a navigator, a hydrographer, and as a commander.2 Indeed, in his biography of Cook, Frank McLynn declares quite unambiguously that "Even 1
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".