MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031270588 · doi:10.1002/oa.852

Bison breeding characteristics and interpretation of archaeological seasonality revisited

2006· article· en· W2031270588 on OpenAlexaff
Dale Walde

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Osteoarchaeology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeasonalitySeasonal breederGeographyPeriod (music)PopulationBison bisonArchaeologyEcologyBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bison breeding behaviour has been used for the last three decades as the basis for developing methods for assigning season‐of‐occupation estimates to archaeological sites on the North American Plains. These methods are based upon the supposition that the North American bison breeding season is extremely short and that genetically controlled ontological characteristics such as foetal growth and tooth eruption sequences can therefore be used to infer site seasonality in a reasonably straightforward and precise manner. This paper reviews bison population studies conducted during the past 30 years to reassess present understandings of the length of North American bison breeding seasons. It is concluded that the bison breeding season regularly extends over a period of three to four months, and that initiation of ontological development will therefore also vary over the same period of time. Bison development characteristics cannot provide a reliable or precise means of assigning seasonality to archaeological sites on the North American Plains. It is suggested that methods using physical characteristics such as dental cementum incrementation which are directly affected by seasonal changes could be more productive. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of OsteoarchaeologySame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207