Preface: Evidence and Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence and MethodsIn the 300 years between the mid-thirteenth and the late sixteenth centuries, encounters between the indigenous peoples of the North American arctic and explorers and fishermen from Europe were rare, brief, and often at a distance.Until 1576, few observers recorded what they saw.Between 1576 and 1620, a series of expeditions in search of an ocean passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific produced more than a dozen accounts of meetings with arctic dwellers, some of them in great detail.Because both parties expected hostility from the other, the meetings were at arm's length, and accounts of them were superficial and often speculative.After 1717, when the Hudson's Bay Company established its post at the mouth of the Churchill River, British fur traders began to keep more detailed records of meetings with Inuit.A few traders, such as James Isham and Andrew Graham, produced densely descriptive ethnographies of the Keewatin coast people.The British Admiralty mounted a new and intensive search in 1817 for a far northern sea route from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and more accounts of arctic peoples were added to the descriptive literature.However, no systematic attempts to understand the social and political institutions or the history of the indigenous peoples took place until the 1880s, when both Germany and Denmark sent teams of investigators to study arctic societies as well as arctic climate, geography, and wildlife.Franz Boas, a recent doctoral graduate specializing in physics, mathematics, and geography, spent June 1883 to August 1884 as surveyor and cartographer with the German expedition to south Baffin Island.In the same years the ethnologist Gustav Holm, with the Danish Polar Expedition, conducted a comprehensive fieldwork study of the people of Ammassalik on Greenland's east coast.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".