“Dyeing Commodities whether in Roote or floure”: Reconstructing Aboriginal Dye Techniques from Documentary and Museum Sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the differences found in various documentary sources purporting to describe Aboriginal quill dyeing techniques. The authors identified a number of recipes for quill dyeing that were collected by fur traders, explorers and ethnologists. They then attempted to reproduce the recipes. Finally, they worked the dyed quills into characteristic patterns and compared the results to existing artifacts from museum collections. The results of this research suggest that the amount of detail, accuracy and reproducibility in recipes varied widely between sources. The authors suggest that the reasons why various authors collected these dye recipes may explain, at least in part, the differences in recipes, but that, also, connections to communities and other factors must be considered when discussing the reproducibility of dye recipes. This research is preliminary. Further avenues of research are suggested. Resume Cet article examine les differences decouvertes dans diverses sources documentaires decrivant les techniques autochtones de teinture de piquants de porc-epic. Leurs auteurs mentionnaient un certain nombre de recettes recueillies par des traiteurs de fourrures, des explorateurs et des ethnologues. Ils essayaient par la suite de reproduire ces recettes, d’agencer les piquants de porc-epic en motifs caracteristiques et de comparer leurs resultats aux artefacts presents dans les collections museales. Les resultats de notre recherche montrent que les details, l’exactitude et la reproductibilite des recettes variaient considerablement entre les differentes sources. Nous suggerons que c’est la diversite des raisons pour lesquelles les differents auteurs ont collecte ces recettes qui peut expliquer, du moins en partie, les differences entre ces dernieres, mais qu’il faut egalement prendre en consideration les liens avec les communautes et d’autres facteurs pour examiner la reproductibilite de ces recettes tinctoriales. Cette recherche n’en est qu’a ses debuts et d’autres pistes de recherche seront avancees ici
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".