MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038521270 · doi:10.2307/30042810

The Viejo Period of Chihuahua Culture in Northwestern Mexico

2005· article· en· W2038521270 on OpenAlexaff
J. D. Stewart, Jane H. Kelley, A. C. MacWilliams, Paula Reimer

Bibliographic record

VenueLatin American Antiquity · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriod (music)ArchaeologyRadiocarbon datingPrehistoryPolychromeExcavationGeographyGeologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract “Chihuahua culture” refers to two prehistoric periods of ceramic agricultural occupation in northwestern Mexico. It has long been known that the Medio period (ca. A.D. 1200–1450), with substantial adobe pueblo villages and towns, and ceramics that included elaborate polychrome wares, occurred over a vast region in western and northern Chihuahua and northeastern Sonora. It was also recognized that the preceding Viejo period, with pithouse and wattle-and-daub surface architecture, and less elaborate ceramics, was ancestral, at least in part. However, the geographical extent, dating, and nature of the Viejo-Medio transition were unclear. Recent research by several field projects has demonstrated that Viejo and Medio period occupations were geographically coextensive, as was the transition. A foundation for Viejo period chronometric dating (ca. A.D. 700–1200) is now established by 30 radiocarbon determinations from excavations in west central Chihuahua and one from northeastern Sonora. We discuss the dimensions of the Viejo period in west central Chihuahua with data from 1998–2000 excavations by the PAC (Proyecto Arqueológico Chihuahua). It provides an example of a broad-based transition from a relatively simple to a relatively complex pattern, and new perspectives on the interpretation of radiocarbon dating.”

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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLatin American AntiquitySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207