MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2050238140 · doi:10.4043/21505-ms

Marine Archaeology in Alaska - An Overview

2011· article· en· W2050238140 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kimberly L. Faulk

Notice bibliographique

RevueOffshore Technology Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPrehistoryArchaeologyArcticOceanographyMarine conservationGeologyGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Ongoing exploration and development activities in the Arctic and on the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) require marine archaeological assessments. Current United States requirements are based on known archaeological sites, and predictive models for potential submerged archaeological sites. At present the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) Alaska office requires archaeological assessments for any area deemed to be potentially archaeologically significant. BOEMRE guidelines have established that archaeological sites in Alaska may include prehistoric sites or historic sites fifty years of age or older. These historic sites may include downed aircraft, shipwrecks, submerged structures, or other manmade objects. The guidelines also provide for prehistoric site potential based on sea level low stands approximately 13,000 years BPE. Low stands along the Alaska coast typically align with the 60 meter bathymetric contour making much of the shallow Alaska OCS a high potential area for submerged archaeological resources. Standard geophysical data is used to seek, and identify submerged archaeological sites in Alaskan and Arctic waters, just as it is used in the Gulf of Mexico Region. These data provide a glimpse into the history and prehistory of Alaska in a way unavailable on land. Previous studies focused on the unlikelihood of discovering unidentified submerged cultural resources in Alaska and the Arctic. Recent discoveries throughout the northern latitudes, however, have proven that the potential for intact, undocumented sites is highly likely on the Alaskan and Canadian OCS. This paper explores the potential for submerged cultural sites in Alaskan waters, recent discoveries in the Arctic region, and the potential for future unanticipated archaeological discoveries in northern waters. Mythology of Arctic Underwater Archaeology Several misconceptions seem to surround Arctic underwater archaeology. The first of misconception involves the Bering Land Bridge and the image of a narrow strip of land above the Bering Sea on one side and the Arctic Ocean on the other with people and animals moving in opposite directions. Certainly the existence of the Bering Land Bridge has been well documented by geologists and archaeologists alike. The bigger issue is the ability of the Land Bridge to provide a transit route into new hunting territory. For several decades archaeologists have deliberated over whether or not there was more than a single migration into the western hemisphere via the Bering Land Bridge, but current research demonstrates there were several waves of migration into the western hemisphere. These migrations likely occurred through a variety of means including the Bering Land Bridge, small boats arriving on the Pacific coast, and potentially even small boats arriving from the European continent on the Atlantic coast in the prehistoric past. The second misconception is that ice has destroyed any remnants of past cultures, but recent discoveries in the Canadian Arctic have proven this belief wrong. Research by Parks Canada supports the idea that there is less damage from the ice on submerged cultural resources than there is from the rapid freezing and thawing cycles which are eroding the headlands and beaches in the Arctic at a rapid rate. Indeed, shore-fast ice may very well provide some of the best protection for submerged cultural resources in Alaska. Seasonal ice movement may as well provide some small protection to submerged sites by either pulling sites into deeper water, or by depositing fine sands and gravels over the sites as the ice rafts move away from shore.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,201
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,995

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,140
Tête enseignante GPT0,384
Écart entre enseignants0,244 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOffshore Technology ConferenceMême sujetIndigenous Studies and EcologyTravaux en français237 207