Myth and Reality: The Theoretical Geography of Northwest America from Cook to Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 20 October 1778, in the last letter he wrote to the Admiralty before his death, Captain James Cook described his failure to find a northwest passage along the Pacific coast of North America. As news of the expedition slowly filtered back to England, the shocking news of Cook&s;s death held centre stage but the geographical results of the voyage also drew interest. If Cook&s;s voyage seemed to have destroyed hopes of a navigable passage between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, it drew attention to the demand in China for the furs of the northwest coast. The fur-trading voyages of the late 1780s had shown that Cook&s;s assumption of 1778 that he was sailing along the mainland coast between Nootka and Cape Edgecumbe was almost certainly wrong. As the accounts and maps of the British traders slowly filtered back to Europe they were collated by Cook&s;s old opponent, Alexander Dalrymple, now hydrographer to the East India Company.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".