Integrated soil analysis at an Inuit tent camp: Huntingdon Island 5 (FkBg-3), Sandwich Bay, South Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of Labrador Inuit archaeology reflects a disproportionate focus on the sod house, characteristic of the winter settlement. However, the sod house represents only a part of the traditional Inuit yearly foraging round. Throughout the warmer seasons, including spring, summer, and early autumn, Inuit lived in skin tents. Although they are representative of a broader seasonal range of subsistence practices, tent camps have seldom been studied. This is due to the poor material assemblages and limited structural remains that characterize these sites, which makes it difficult to approach them through conventional excavation methods. This thesis engages with the potential of a systematic study of Inuit tent camp sites through the development of a more suitable method of analysis. For this purpose, bulk soil samples and undisturbed cores were collected from soils associated with Tent Ring 1 and Tent Ring 4 from Huntingdon Island 5 (FkBg-3), in Sandwich Bay, southern Labrador, and a soil and vegetation survey were carried out at the site. Ethnographic data was used to interpret the structures, guide sampling procedures and formulate working hypotheses, which were tested through the joint application of thin section micromorphology, soil chemistry and paleoethnobotanical analysis under the heading of integrated soil analysis. This approach is designed to address specific issues connected to the southern Labrador landscape, such as the shallowness of acidic tundra soils and the narrow buffer zone between the active layer of plant growth and the archaeological layer, and to answer questions about the taskscape associated with the tent rings, as well as their environmental and taphonomic context. The analysis has provided information on the internal structure of the dwellings and designated activity areas, reoccupation events, the length and season of occupation, as well as a relative sequence of use, while simultaneously providing a perspective on the environmental signature of these dwellings on the south Labrador tundrascape and the taphonomic processes that impact 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".