MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1873821353 · doi:10.1017/s0003598x0010122x

On thin ice: problems with Stanford and Bradley's proposed Solutrean colonisation of North America

2014· article· en· W1873821353 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. O’Brien, Matthew Boulanger, Mark Collard, Briggs Buchanan, Lia Tarle, Lawrence Guy Straus, Metin I. Eren

Bibliographic record

VenueAntiquity · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsPeninsulaColonisationWatercraftArchaeologyLast Glacial MaximumHistoryGeographyOceanographyEthnologyGeologyColonizationHolocene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Across Atlantic ice: the origin of America's Clovis culture(Stanford & Bradley 2012) is the latest iteration of a controversial proposal that North America was first colonised by people from Europe rather than from East Asia, as most researchers accept. The authors, Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley, argue that Solutrean groups from southern France and the Iberian Peninsula used watercraft to make their way across the North Atlantic and into North America during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). According to Stanford and Bradley, this 6000km journey was facilitated by a continuous ice shelf that provided fresh water and a food supply.AcrossAtlantic ice has received a number of positive reviews. Shea (2012: 294), for example, suggests that it is “an excellent example of hypothesis-building in the best tradition of processual archaeology. It challenges American archaeology in a way that will require serious research by its opponents”. Runnels (2012) is equally enthusiastic.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.033
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0060.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.179 · 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
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

Citations40
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntiquitySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207