MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1575147025 · doi:10.14288/bcs.v0i180.184165

Barking up the Right Tree: Understanding Birch Bark Artifacts from the Canadian Plateau, British Columbia

2013· article· en· W1575147025 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shannon Croft, Rolf W. Mathewes

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBark (sound)Plateau (mathematics)ArchaeologyGeographyPrehistoryForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several birch bark containers and other birch bark artifacts made by prehistoric First Nations have been encountered during archaeological excavations on the Canadian Plateau of British Columbia. From these discoveries, it is apparent that birch bark technologies were of major importance to First Nations, yet little attention has been paid to them as a category of artifacts. Ethnographic records from the Canadian Plateau indicate that birch bark basketry was consistently made by women. Thus, birch bark baskets provide a tool with which to make women and their work visible in the archaeological record. Birch bark baskets were important for food collection and storage, and appear in burials and girls puberty rituals. Here we describe two Late Period birch bark baskets and their contents (approximately dating to the Plateau Horizon 2400–1200 BP) from sites near Lillooet, BC and illustrate how birch bark was closely associated with women, both economically and spiritually.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0160.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207