Bibliographic record
Abstract
The modern history of the North Pacific began five hundred years ago when Europeans sailed into the ocean for the first time. This discovery shaped the destinies of seven countries that now rim its Asiatic and North American shores: Russia, China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, the United States, and Canada. Their history is an exciting epic of discovery -- the great expeditions of Marco Polo, Drake, and Magellan; the quest for the spices of Cathay; the early days of the fur trade, the gold rush, and the long treks westward across North America to first establish Canadian and American possessions on the Pacific shore. Rivalry and confrontation were part of this epic. From the sixteenth to the nineteenth century European powers contested for the riches of the East and the West, the wealth of the ocean, and territory to sate colonial ambitions. Since that time full-blooded conflicts developed between Asian states and between Asia and the Western powers. As a major trading power in the Pacific with no tradition of territorial expansion, and as a respected peacekeeper, Canada is in a unique position to view the history of the Pacific impartially. This survey is doubly valuable, not only as the first history of the North Pacific dealing with the concurrent events in the East and West, but also as a history reflecting Canada's international outlook.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.005 |
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".