MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028025734 · doi:10.1177/1359183515581631

Argillite, faux-argillite and black plastic: The political economy of simulating a quintessential Haida substance

2015· article· en· W2028025734 on OpenAlex
Solen Roth

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Material Culture · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotemCarvingPoliticsArchaeologyHistoryLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hlgas7agaa or argillite is a type of carbonaceous shale that is found on Slatechuck Mountain, in Haida Gwaii. Since the 19th century, the Haida have been producing argillite carvings for sale, including small-scale totem poles. Argillite carvings are now a much revered art form, and the Haida remain the only ones to have direct access to this stone. However, various companies produce imitations of argillite carving in composite materials, with more or less success in producing the ‘look’ and ‘feel’ of argillite. All these imitations, including those that are nowhere near achieving convincing simulation, acquire an added commercial appeal that distinguishes them from ‘plastic totem poles’ by evoking a symbolically, socially, economically, and culturally valued material. Arguably, this makes producers of argillite-like items indebted to those who have made argillite so valuable by carefully guarding it from outside circulation in raw form, namely the Haida.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.312
Teacher spread0.284 · 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