MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ships/Shipbuilding

2024· reference-entry· en· W4391932612 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Phillip Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2024
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMaritime and Coastal Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShipbuildingMarine engineeringEngineeringGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For most of the 15th century, the maritime power of Europeans was confined to the smaller seas whose coasts they inhabited. Spurred by shifting power dynamics, they developed ships capable of crossing the world’s major oceans in the late 15th century, with enough personnel, cargo, and arms to make such voyaging worthwhile. They used such vessels first to explore and exploit Macaronesia, then rounding the southern tip of Africa, entering the Indian Ocean World. The same types of vessels crossed the North Atlantic, bringing colonizers to the Americas. By the early 16th century, these European ships had crossed the world’s largest ocean, the Pacific. They were, however, latecomers to transoceanic voyaging under sail; contemporaries from Asia, the Indian Ocean World, and the Pacific islands were already engaged in transoceanic movement and commerce, and had been for centuries. The singular innovation of Europeans in early modern shipping was their establishment and maintenance of transatlantic routes to the Americas, as an extension of what they had done in Macaronesia, colonizing the Caribbean islands, and then South, Central, and North America. The ships they used were, like those in use all over the world, built of wooden frames and planks, and powered by sailing rigs with multiple masts and multiple sails, allowing for flexibility in sail plan to best match the wind and sea conditions in which the vessel was operating; those conditions changed frequently and often drastically, so that a vessel whose crew could quickly adapt a sail plan to changing conditions had a much better chance of successfully navigating the vessel on a long ocean voyage requiring self-sufficiency for weeks or months at a time. The study of the ships themselves—their design, construction, and techniques of operation—is necessarily interdisciplinary. It requires reading in the history of science, the history of technology, economic history, labor history, military and naval history, material culture, and maritime archaeology; the physical remains of period vessels are essential primary sources. A perennial challenge to writing maritime history with a focus on ships is achieving adequate technical mastery of the subject, which also requires reading technical histories written by museum curators and experts outside the academy, such as serious modelers, replica designers, and naval architects who understand sailing craft. Here, I restrict inclusion of academic history works to those centrally and specifically concerned with the technology of the ship itself. The discipline of archaeology has, over time, produced far more of such works. Some historians have considered ship technology seriously; it is to be hoped that more useful work on the subject will come from the field of the history of technology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2270.158

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicMaritime and Coastal ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207