MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995472075 · doi:10.1017/s0140525x02330073

Coincidental factors of handaxe morphology

2002· article· en· W1995472075 on OpenAlexaff
April Nowell

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral and Brain Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeological and Geological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionMorphology (biology)PsychologyFunction (biology)Cognitive scienceCognitive psychologyEvolutionary biologyNeurosciencePaleontologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Handaxe morphology is thought to be the first example of the imposition of arbitrary form. Handaxes may thus inform researchers about shared mental templates and evolving cognitive abilities. However, many factors, not related to changes in cognition (e.g., material type, function, resharpening processes), influence handaxe shape over time and space. Archaeologists must control for these factors before making inferences concerning cognition.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.100 · 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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral and Brain SciencesSame topicArchaeological and Geological StudiesFrench-language works237,207