MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010156844 · doi:10.14430/arctic4192

Central Norwegian Snow Patch Archaeology: Patterns Past and Present

2012· article· en· W2010156844 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martin Callanan

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowArchaeologyArtifact (error)Physical geographyPeriod (music)GeologyGeographyNorwegianArchaeological recordGeomorphologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over nearly a century, a large assemblage of archaeological artifacts has been collected from some high-lying snow patches in a number of mountain areas in central Norway. The regional collection now comprises 234 individual artifacts that include both organic and inorganic elements. Many of these are arrowheads, shafts, and other equipment from past hunting expeditions on alpine snow patches. This article outlines three different phases of artifact recovery in the region: Phase I (1914 – 43) began with the initial snow patch discovery and included large numbers of finds in the 1930s and early 1940s; Phase II (1944 – 2000) had relatively few discoveries; and Phase III (2001 – 11) included discovery of 17 new sites and a record number of 145 artifacts. Local reindeer hunters and hikers have recovered many of the artifacts. There are close links between reindeer hunting and snow patch surveying in the region. The majority of snow patch finds were recovered during the period from mid-August through mid-September. The collection can best be viewed as a cohesive long-term record of melting snow patches.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207