MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Collota, Netahaha y el desarrollo del poder wari en el valle de Cotahuasi, Arequipa, Perú

2001· article· es· W1638183948 on OpenAlexaff
Justin Jennings, Willy Yépez

Bibliographic record

VenueBoletín de Arqueología PUCP · 2001
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeological and Geological Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uno de los problemas más difíciles en el estudio de los estados e imperios antiguos es la identificación de formas diferentes de consolidación regional con los datos arqueológicos. La construcción de un centro administrativo es un indicador muy claro de la presencia de un estado y áreas con este tipo de centro han sido descritas como islas de control directo dentro del mosaico imperial. Durante el Horizonte Medio (600-1000 a.C.) ocurrieron cambios significativos en el asentamiento y subsistencia del valle de Cotahuasi, Perú, los cuales son, obviamente, una divergencia del desarrollo local. En ese mismo momento se construyeron dos centros administrativos nuevos, Collota y Netahaha, en el estilo del imperio Wari. La evidencia cerámica y arquitectónica, sin embargo, sugiere que Collota y Netahaha no eran instalaciones construidas por el imperio como parte de un sistema de control jerárquico directo, sino, más bien, como centros administrativos locales construidos por elites locales, los cuales emularon, quizá por coerción, al imperio Wari para organizar la producción de la región. De este modo, aunque este logró ejercer un control substancial durante el Horizonte Medio, las elites locales, bajo su creciente influencia, originaron estos cambios.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBoletín de Arqueología PUCPSame topicArchaeological and Geological StudiesFrench-language works237,207