MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1482877558 · doi:10.1002/sca.21032

Quantifying Microwear on Experimental Mistassini Quartzite Scrapers: Preliminary Results of Exploratory Research Using <scp>LSCM</scp> and Scale‐Sensitive Fractal Analysis

2012· article· en· W1482877558 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScanning · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScraper siteSurface finishScale (ratio)Computer scienceQuartzMaterials scienceGeologyArtificial intelligenceGeographyComposite materialCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although previous use-wear studies involving quartz and quartzite have been undertaken by archaeologists, these are comparatively few in number. Moreover, there has been relatively little effort to quantify use-wear on stone tools made from quartzite. The purpose of this article is to determine the effectiveness of a measurement system, laser scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM), to document the surface roughness or texture of experimental Mistassini quartzite scrapers used on two different contact materials (fresh and dry deer hide). As in previous studies using LSCM on chert, flint, and obsidian, this exploratory study incorporates a mathematical algorithm that permits the discrimination of surface roughness based on comparisons at multiple scales. Specifically, we employ measures of relative area (RelA) coupled with the F-test to discriminate used from unused stone tool surfaces, as well as surfaces of quartzite scrapers used on dry and fresh deer hide. Our results further demonstrate the effect of raw material variation on use-wear formation and its documentation using LSCM and RelA.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.273 · 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