MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401027366 · doi:10.1093/arthis/ulae019

Monumental Ephemera: British Sculpture in the Arctic, Icebergs in London, an Inuit Map

2024· article· en· W4401027366 on OpenAlex
Mark Cheetham

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArt History · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSculptureArcticEphemeraAmateurArtThe arcticArchaeologyCraftArt historyPaintingHistoryVisual artsOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Arctic fascinated Londoners in the nineteenth century in panoramas, paintings and sculptures, voyage narratives and—tragically—transplanted Inuit. What has not been fully examined are the little-known amateur ‘snow sculptures’ of Britannia and other imperial figures made on a monumental scale in the Arctic in the early 1850s, when hundreds of sailors were searching for the lost 1845 Franklin expedition. Comparable with this crossing in sculpture is the amalgamation in one Parliamentary chart of an anonymous Inuk’s drawing of Franklin’s ships in the ice with a rendering of the area approved by the Admiralty. While these chiasmic interactions map a circuit of exchange, they also lack a centre. The most conspicuous absence in the Arctic was John Franklin, his crew and his two recently-recovered ships. In England, what was never ‘fixed’ was the idea of the Arctic.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · 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