MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1906735997 · doi:10.7202/009114ar

Vickers Focus Environmental Choices and Site Location in the Parklands of Southwestern Manitoba

2004· article· en· W1906735997 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
B.A. Nicholson, Sylvia Nicholson, Garry L. Running, Scott Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueGéographie physique et Quaternaire · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsistence agricultureForagingGeographySpecies richnessResource (disambiguation)EcologyAbundance (ecology)ArchaeologyVegetation (pathology)Environmental protectionAgricultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Vickers Focus people entered the parklands of Southwestern Manitoba sometime around AD 1400, settling in the Tiger Hills uplands. Their ceramics indicate that their original homelands were in south-central Minnesota and northern Iowa and that they maintained connections with the Middle Missouri area to the south. The reconstructed lifeways of the Vickers Focus people, while they were living in this area, indicate that a foraging/horticultural subsistence background influenced their selection of sites. Sometime before AD 1500 they shifted westward into the Lauder Sandhills area southeast of Oak Lake. In their new homeland there is no evidence that they continued to practice horticulture but rather they intensified their foraging activities. While their subsistence strategies appear to have been modified when they relocated themselves, a number of environmental and ecological commonalities link these areas. Both areas are characterized by warm soils, with an abundance of pothole water sources. Ecological complexity and resource richness characterize the local environments. In addition, there appears to have been an active desire to avoid locating their sites along major travel routes in the region. The ecological and environmental parameters of the areas they selected are explored in this paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéographie physique et QuaternaireSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207