Bibliographic record
Abstract
David Thompson (1770-1857) is considered by many to have been the most important surveyor of North America. His achievements - mapping the Saskatchewan River, the great bend of the Missouri River, the Great Lakes and the headwaters of the Mississippi as well as the Columbia watershed - are the stuff of legend. Late in life Thompson wrote a retrospective memoir of his explorations, but the best way to understand his years in the fur trade is by reading his journals. With the publication of David Thompson's Columbia Journals Barbara Belyea makes this possible. Documenting the Northwest Company's efforts to find trade routes across the Canadian Rocky Mountains, Columbia Journals also reveals Thompson's personal interest in mapping the great river of the West sought by generations of explorers. His accounts provide a detailed picture of the fur business and remind us to what extent the territory he explored has been transformed by settlement, roads, and hydroelectric dams. Thompson's journals trace the fur trade's westernmost expansion while his hand-drawn maps preserve a contemporary image of the country he explored. The extensive notes that accompany the Columbia Journals provide a documentary context for Thompson's own account. Details of Thompson's manuscript maps are included, as is the work of other cartographers of the period. By placing Thompson's work in the context of the fur-trade and comparing his accomplishments with those of his contemporaries, Belyea shows what makes David Thompson truly remarkable and worthy of attention two hundred years after his surveys of the Columbia River.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.748 | 0.662 |
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".