Bibliographic record
Abstract
FoR many reasons I think that this expedition has been generally regarded as one of the most memorable of the many Audubon so successfully accomplished.Much valuable work was done, considering the many hardships endured, the long fatiguing hours necessary to complete his drawings, made under most unfavorable conditions, and the natural responsibility of the five young men who accompanied him.All these details we have read and reread for so many years in that most •attractive episode 'Labrador ',• and later 'The Labrador Journal' 2 which records the daily events between the departure from Eastport, Maine, on the schooner 'RipIcy,' in command of Captain Emery, a on June 6, 1833, and the safe return to the same port on August 31, 1833.Audubon's party consisted of his son John Woodhouse Audubon, 4 William Ingalls 5 and George C. Shattuck 0 of Boston, Thomas Lincoln ? of Dennisville, Maine, and Joseph A. Coolidge s of Eastport, Maine, all young men between eighteen and twenty-one years of age.None of them had had any sea-faring experience except young Coolidge, whose father had charge of a revenue-cutter and had faken Audubon to various islands on the Maine coast in quest of birds.In 1903, Dr. William Ingalls was the only surviving member of this party.Having incidentally learned that he was still living, not only did I have the pleasure of a delightful correspondence, but a still greater satisfaction of visiting with him at his home in Roxbury, Mass., in July, 1903, only five months previous to his death.A1x Orn.Biogr., Vol.III, p. 584. 2 'Audubon and his Journals,' 1897, Vol.I, p. 349.• While I have been unable to trace anything definite regarding Capt.Emery, it has been reported that he afterwards was in command of an ocean liner and later died insane.(R.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.155 | 0.057 |
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".