Late Prehistoric Human Impact on Bass Pond, Port au Choix
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CALIBRATED RADIOCARBON DATES place the Groswater and Dorset Palaeoeskimo occupations of Port au Choix at 2950-1820 cal BP 1 and 1990-1180 cal BP, respectively. Faunal studies (Kennett 1990; Murray 1992; Hodgetts et al. 2003) have demonstrated that populations of both cultures engaged in harp seal hunting during the late winter and early spring, and Hodgetts (this volume) demonstrates that Dorset also exploited harp seal during the early winter. Excavation of Groswater and Dorset sites at Port au Choix (Renouf 1993, 1994, 1999) reveals that Dorset occupation was more intensive than Groswater, and was more narrowly focused on the harp seal. In this paper we demonstrate that at 2200-1800 cal BP there were marked changes in the local environment observable in the fossil pollen and spores, algal remains and charcoal in pond sediments from Bass Pond, adjacent to Palaeoeskimo sites in Port au Choix (Figure 1). We compare these to data from Stove Pond, which represents a prehistoric baseline record from an interior, non-inhabited location. The changes observable in the Bass Pond environmental record are coincident with nearby Palaeoeskimo occupations, and we argue that Groswater and Dorset activities had clear and recognizable impacts on their local environment through (i) alteration of the natural vegetation by wood-cutting and burning; (ii) disturbance and erosion of soil; (iii) disturbance and trampling of wetlands; and (iv) temporary increases in lake nutrients (eutrophication) and salinity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it