Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forty years have passed since the existence of Northern Archaic (NAT), a cultural tradition in northwestern Alaska distinct from Arctic traditions such as Arctic Small Tool (AST) was proposed. The usefulness and even reality of NAT as originally conceived is revisited here to see if the concept continues to have merit or if it should be abandoned altogether. Originally, NAT was thought to represent an expansion of culture northward during middle Holocene times from the more temperate and sub-arctic regions of the continent into forest/tundra-edge habitats of northwestern North America. Although evidence for the tradition came from numerous sites in Alaska and the Southwest Yukon, the concept was fully developed from findings at Onion Portage. Although the sequence demonstrated a change over time from side-notched to lanceolate points, there was a total absence of a microblade industry throughout the entire 2,000 years. Recent findings of notched points associated with microblades in other northern Alaskan sites have demonstrated a far more complex prehistory in the region than originally thought. Discussion of the “notched point” problem stresses the idea that side-notching alone need not indicate a distinct cultural tradition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".