Bibliographic record
Abstract
Travel narratives, while complex and often contradictory, offer a tool for historians and cultural critics to explore the past and present of localized imperial peripheries and of the larger empires they are a part of. This author uses the travel writing of R.L. Dashwood, W.R. Kennedy, and J.G. Millais to discuss how European sport-hunting elites imagined Newfoundland and its inhabitants, and how they described them to readers throughout the empire. Through the exaggerations and fallacies of travel writers, who foregrounded their own ruggedness, manliness and self-sufficiency, are Indigenous guides, working-class settlers, and women who challenge established narratives in Newfoundland’s history, and without whom the travel writers could never have succeeded. The author investigates the depiction of these groups of Newfoundland residents in European travel writing to explore how their identities were shaped and reshaped in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century, and calls for further re-examination of these groups as part of Newfoundland's historical narrative.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".