Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between humans and their environment is a heavily debated, multi-disciplinary discussion that has raised awareness about urgent issues, such as climate change. Earth’s booming population encourages globalization, greed, and over-consumption and has changed the basic composition of the planet, causing humans to continually possess a distorted view of their relationship to nature. This idea can be applied to the Classic Maya, as their success as a thriving civilization rested on their access to the resources around them. Around 900 CE, many of the heavily populated Maya cities were abandoned suddenly and the reason for this collapse is still heavily disputed to this day. The theory that has gained the most momentum in this debate is the drought theory. The Maya suffered a series of droughts during the Classic Maya era and the most significant was a megadrought that lasted from 800CE to 1000 CE. This particular drought had a catastrophic impact on the political stability, economic success, and societal prosperity of many of the great Maya cities. Through lake core sediment analysis, Curtis, Hodell, and Brenner observed that drought periods coincided with periods of Maya recession; a drought period at 862 ± 50 cal, yr. corresponded with the Classic Maya collapse and a drought period at 585 CE occurred during the Maya Hiatus. Both of these drought periods were times of monument decline, city abandonment, and social cataclysm (Curtis, 1996, p. 45). The megadrought that the Maya were faced with produced complete social upheaval, resulting in their eventual fall. As with any diminishing civilization, all aspects of society were under threat; the political nature of many Maya cities was ominous, economic stability disintegrated, health, happiness, and personal faith were dejected, and social contentment vanished completely. The megadrought and its fatal impact had been the driving force behind the Classic Maya collapse.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".