Mapping Antarctic and Arctic Women: An exploration of polar women’s experiences and contributions through place names
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this commentary, I investigate the Poles differently, and in situ, rather than only as stereotypically barren uninhabited expansive places on a globe or maps. The human stories are behind the relatively white space on which few place names are marked. But the more visible ones are made and told through a male-dominated, colonial narrator and mapmaker, until more recently. Cartography, like history, has overwhelmingly documented men’s worlds, stories, dominations and accomplishments, creating a virtual whiteout of women’s and notably Indigenous women’s stories also in polar regions. In this commentary, I report on a journey into (re)mapmaking I did of women’s stories told through female place names and toponymies of women especially in the Antarctic, through a crowd-sourced project, Mapping Antarctic Women. I explore not only mapping female place names and women’s stories in the Arctic, exploring gendered, colonial and western culture mapping but also newer digital Indigenous place name mapping and also mapping of human-exacerbated changes in the ice that makes the Antarctic map.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".