MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050238140 · doi:10.4043/21505-ms

Marine Archaeology in Alaska - An Overview

2011· article· en· W2050238140 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kimberly L. Faulk

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrehistoryArchaeologyArcticOceanographyMarine conservationGeologyGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ongoing exploration and development activities in the Arctic and on the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) require marine archaeological assessments. Current United States requirements are based on known archaeological sites, and predictive models for potential submerged archaeological sites. At present the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) Alaska office requires archaeological assessments for any area deemed to be potentially archaeologically significant. BOEMRE guidelines have established that archaeological sites in Alaska may include prehistoric sites or historic sites fifty years of age or older. These historic sites may include downed aircraft, shipwrecks, submerged structures, or other manmade objects. The guidelines also provide for prehistoric site potential based on sea level low stands approximately 13,000 years BPE. Low stands along the Alaska coast typically align with the 60 meter bathymetric contour making much of the shallow Alaska OCS a high potential area for submerged archaeological resources. Standard geophysical data is used to seek, and identify submerged archaeological sites in Alaskan and Arctic waters, just as it is used in the Gulf of Mexico Region. These data provide a glimpse into the history and prehistory of Alaska in a way unavailable on land. Previous studies focused on the unlikelihood of discovering unidentified submerged cultural resources in Alaska and the Arctic. Recent discoveries throughout the northern latitudes, however, have proven that the potential for intact, undocumented sites is highly likely on the Alaskan and Canadian OCS. This paper explores the potential for submerged cultural sites in Alaskan waters, recent discoveries in the Arctic region, and the potential for future unanticipated archaeological discoveries in northern waters. Mythology of Arctic Underwater Archaeology Several misconceptions seem to surround Arctic underwater archaeology. The first of misconception involves the Bering Land Bridge and the image of a narrow strip of land above the Bering Sea on one side and the Arctic Ocean on the other with people and animals moving in opposite directions. Certainly the existence of the Bering Land Bridge has been well documented by geologists and archaeologists alike. The bigger issue is the ability of the Land Bridge to provide a transit route into new hunting territory. For several decades archaeologists have deliberated over whether or not there was more than a single migration into the western hemisphere via the Bering Land Bridge, but current research demonstrates there were several waves of migration into the western hemisphere. These migrations likely occurred through a variety of means including the Bering Land Bridge, small boats arriving on the Pacific coast, and potentially even small boats arriving from the European continent on the Atlantic coast in the prehistoric past. The second misconception is that ice has destroyed any remnants of past cultures, but recent discoveries in the Canadian Arctic have proven this belief wrong. Research by Parks Canada supports the idea that there is less damage from the ice on submerged cultural resources than there is from the rapid freezing and thawing cycles which are eroding the headlands and beaches in the Arctic at a rapid rate. Indeed, shore-fast ice may very well provide some of the best protection for submerged cultural resources in Alaska. Seasonal ice movement may as well provide some small protection to submerged sites by either pulling sites into deeper water, or by depositing fine sands and gravels over the sites as the ice rafts move away from shore.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOffshore Technology ConferenceSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207