Commentary: what are archaeological ethics?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThe problems and goals noted in the papers comprising this volume are compared with those of North American archaeology. A more restricted framing of the concept of ‘archaeological ethics’ is suggested, together with a more mindful consideration of the social, economic and political implications of archaeological work and interpretation.Les problèmes et les objectifs soulevés dans les articles constituant ce volume sont comparés avec ceux que l'on rencontre dans l'archéologie nord-américaine. Nous proposons un cadrage plus restreint du concept de l’ ‘éthique archéologique’, ainsi qu'une considération plus poussée des implications sociales, économiques et politiques du travail et de l'interprétation archéologiques.Keywords: ethicsNorth American archaeologypoliticssocial goals Notes on contributorRobert McGhee has worked and written widely in the archaeology of northern North America. He recently retired from the position of Curator of Arctic Archaeology at the Canadian Museum of Civilisation.
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.
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 | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 it