MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035552183 · doi:10.1086/680873

Origins of Prehispanic Camelid Wool Textiles from the North and Central Coasts of Peru Traced by Carbon and Nitrogen Isotopic Analyses

2015· article· en· W2035552183 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Szpak, Jean‐François Millaire, Christine D. White, George Lau, Flannery Surette, Fred J. Longstaffe

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Anthropology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoolPeriod (music)GeographyIsotope analysisArchaeologyEcologyBiologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon and nitrogen isotopic compositions of wool textiles from the north (Virú, Early Intermediate Period) and central (Chancay, Late Intermediate Period) coasts of Peru were used to reconstruct the diet and habitat of the camelids (llamas and alpacas) from which they were produced in order to better understand the regional political economies. The Chancay textiles were derived from camelids primarily raised on high-altitude C3 grasslands. Similarly, isotopic data from Virú textiles assembled in north-coast styles are consistent with the importation of highland camelid wool. For both Virú and Chancay, imported raw materials were crafted in local styles, serving as an effective means of materializing corporate power. Stylistically foreign (noncoastal) Virú textiles were characterized by carbon isotopic compositions similar to those for camelids recovered from Early Intermediate Period sites in the Virú Valley and suggest that these textiles originated in the yungas (1,000–2,300 m asl) or the low sierra (2,300–3,500 m asl). Accordingly, although highland camelid wool was imported to the coast, a simple model of exchange involving the movement of wool textiles exclusively from the puna or the altiplano to the coast is untenable.

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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.002
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations62
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent AnthropologySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207