MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063240192 · doi:10.1177/0197693115570284

Taphonomic analysis of the Folsom bonebed at Lake Theo, Texas

2015· article· en· W2063240192 on OpenAlexaff
Briggs Buchanan, Susan Huelsebusch Buchanan, Eileen Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Archaeologist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaRoyal British Columbia Museum
FundersTexas Tech University
KeywordsTaphonomyAssemblage (archaeology)ArchaeologyGeologySedimentNatural (archaeology)ZooarchaeologyPaleontologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lake Theo site is one of a handful of excavated Folsom-aged bonebeds on the Southern Plains. Despite the importance of this site, only limited research has been conducted on the collection. This limitation is a consequence of most of the bones being housed in sediment blocks removed from the field. This study makes use of recent efforts that have made the collection more accessible for research. Both taphonomic observations on the bone assemblage and statistical analyses that evaluate models of natural and cultural pre- and postdepositional processes now are reported. Taphonomic observations are consistent with the hypothesis that sediments buried the bonebed shortly after the carcasses were deposited. Forward stepwise multiple regression analyses indicate that the total products utility model is the best-fitting model. As such, the analyses suggest that Folsom hunters transported elements of higher utility away from the Lake Theo bison kill for further use. The actions of water flow and other natural destructive processes have not significantly influenced the observed skeletal element frequency.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.014
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American ArchaeologistSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207