Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few details are known about the fate of the Franklin Expedition after it departed England in 1845. What we do know is derived from the archaeological record, Inuit testimony and brief communications written in 1847 and 1848 from the Expedition. During the 1860s, Charles Francis Hall went to the Arctic in search of survivors, papers, and relics. During Hall's second expedition, two Inuit testimonies emerged which reported unusual site(s) on the Westcoast of King William Island which were reputedly build by the Expedition. Hall believed these sites were either a burial site or a cemented document vault(s). The first testimony, recorded by Hall himself, was obtained from a Pelly Bay Inuk, Sŭ-pung-er, in 1866. The second, was collected from Pelly Bay Inuit by members of Hall's support team, including Peter Bayne, in Hall's absence in 1868. Eventually, the second testimony was sold to the Canadian Government in the form of a report written by George Jamme after Bayne's death in 1928. Until now, only extracts of the Jamme Report have been available. This paper describes the background to the Jamme report and presents it in its entirety along with critiques so that scholars in the future may have this tool.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".