Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both the physical composition and phenomenological qualities of ice posed material riddles that sponsored poetic and proto-scientific investigations into humans’ interactions with cold worlds. Ice, once the substance that indicated north-western and eastern routes for early European explorers to fulfill their lucrative and expansionist desires, eventually presented a trans-arctic impasse, morphing into an adversary that perennially challenged human mastery as well as corporeal integrity. Martin Frobisher’s (1535?–94) expeditions to modern-day Nunavut and Thomas James’s (1592/3–1635) wintering in Hudson Bay evince ice’s enmity all too well. But while ice’s infinitely numbered shapes stressed its indeterminable power of freezing – thereby testing human capabilities to decipher its “strange” properties – it also excited intimacies based upon the nearness of experience rather than the distance of intellectual authority. Robert Fotherby’s impromptu excursion up one of Spitsbergen’s glaciers in 1613 led him to ponder ice’s origin and future, while the natural philosopher Robert Boyle (1627–91) listened intently to the sound of ice melting. Olaus Magnus’s encyclopedic History of the Northern Peoples (1555) and the pamphlet literature depicting London’s earliest “frost fairs” like The Great Frost (1608) and Wonders on the Deep (1684) further document the indelible bonds that ice forged between nature and culture. Uncovering ice’s constitutive part in the construction (not just confinement) of human communities reveals historical moments of civil coexistence, yet it also highlights the fragility of any such imbrication. Ice was an elemental messenger that provoked a philosophical speculation into the uncertain stakes of ecological encounter; as such, sixteenth- and seventeenth-century stories about ice remain a valuable resource for contemplating the fate of the modern world’s vanishing ice stores and of the multispecies populations whose very existence depends on them.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.301 | 0.159 |
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".