Hunter-gatherer settlement and land use in the Central Canadian Rockies, AD 800-1800
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hunters and gatherers can be viewed as part of ecosystems. Through their actions, \nhunter-gatherers can modify, alter and shape ecosystem structures and components. \nThe Central Canadian Rockies ecosystem was selected to explore the impact and role \nof humans in this ecosystem as a case study. This study examines the archaeology of \nthe Central Canadian Rockies from the perspective of hunter-gatherer research, theory \nand concepts. Even in this marginal environment, archaeological investigations have \nshown that people lived and travelled here. This study examines and evaluates \nseveral classes of data including site types, stone tool utilisation, tool technology, \nsubsistence and seasonality, complemented with examination of potentially available \necological resources. Several alternate models of hunter-gatherer utilisation are \nformulated for the Central Canadian Rockies between AD 800 and AD 1800. The \nresult is a reconstructed ethnology of the area’s occupants that models how these \npeople may have organised themselves through a yearly cycle to best utilise limited \nresources. Associational and sacred landscape features are examined to further \nevaluate the models. Changing social dynamics identified in historic and \nethnographic records are reviewed and synthesised with the reconstructed Late \nPrecontact ethnology to better understand Native peoples’ utilisation of the Central \nCanadian Rockies in this period. Conclusions are drawn about the application of \nhunter-gatherer research, theory and models in reconstructing an ethnology of hunter-gatherers \nbased on limited archaeological and palaeo-ecological data, and in assessing \nthe impacts of hunter-gatherers to this mountain ecosystem.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".