MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017218459 · doi:10.1525/ap3a.2005.15.53

Growing Up North: Exploring the Archaeology of Childhood in the Thule and Dorset Cultures of Arctic Canada

2005· article· en· W2017218459 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert W. Park

Bibliographic record

VenueArcheological Papers of the American Anthropological Association · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticPrehistoryArchaeologyThe arcticEthnographyCircumpolar starGeographyAnalogyHistoryEthnologyEcologyBiologyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In late prehistoric times the Canadian Arctic was occupied sequentially by the peoples known to archaeologists as the Dorset and the Thule cultures, the latter being the direct cultural and biological ancestors of the Inuit who live there today. For archaeologists interested in exploring aspects of childhood, the Thule culture has three very desirable characteristics: potentially magnificent preservation due to the effects of permafrost; a complex and varied material culture; and, from their Inuit descendants, a rich and detailed body of ethnographic information that can be drawn upon for analogy. With these advantages it is possible to identify a wide range of Thule items, especially miniature versions of implements, specifically associated with children. These can be studied to explore the roles of children in Thule society. Intriguingly, it is far more difficult to identify items associated with children of the Dorset culture, despite their material culture's being equally complex and their sites being often almost as well preserved. This chapter summarizes the results of research into childhood among the Thule and shows how the experience of childhood for Dorset children may have been somewhat different from that experienced by their Thule successors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations43
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArcheological Papers of the American Anthropological AssociationSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207