Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1835 the map of the arctic coast'of North America was still far from complete, with unmapped gaps of 280 kilometres from Return Reef to Point Barrow in Alaska and 550 kilometres from PointTurnagain to Boothia Peninsula in the Central Canadian Arctic.The Hudson's Bay Company developed a plan to fill the gaps and two of the Company's officers were chosen to carry it out: the veteran Chief Factor Peter Dease -efficient, competent, steady, and with an excellent rapport with Indians and the "servants," mostly Metis -and Thomas Simpson, young, energetic, ambitious, arrogant, and cousin and secretary to George Simpson, the Company's governor in North America.Over a three-year period from 1837 to 1839, operating from a base-camp at Fort Confidence on Great Bear Lake, the expedition achieved its goal.Despite serious problems with sea ice, Dease and Simpson, in some of the longest small-boat voyages in the history of the Arctic, mapped the remaining gaps in a model operation of efficient, economical, and safe exploration.Thomas Simpson's narrative, the standard source on the expedition, claimed the expedition's success for himself, stating "Dease is a worthy, indolent, illiterate soul, and moves just as I give the impulse."In From Barrow to Boothia William Barr shows that Dease's contribution was absolutely crucial to the expedition's success and makes Dease's sober, sensible, and modest account of the expedition available.Dease's journal, reproduced in full, is supplemented by a brief introduction to each section and detailed annotations that clarify and elaborate the text.By including relevant correspondence to and from expedition members, Barr captures the original words of the participants, offering insights into the character of both Dease and Simpson and making clear what really happened on this successful expedition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.834 | 0.777 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".