MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092338133 · doi:10.14430/arctic195

A Reconsideration of Purported Holocene Bison Bones from Northern Alaska

2009· article· en· W2092338133 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeffrey T. Rasic, Paul Matheus

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeringiaHolocenePleistocenePrehistoryBison bisonRadiocarbon datingArchaeologyRange (aeronautics)ArcticContext (archaeology)GeographyHolocene climatic optimumGeologyEcologyBiologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While bison were the most abundant large mammals in Eastern Beringia for most of the last 100 000 years, their range declined drastically at the end of the Pleistocene and through the Holocene. Research into the nature of Holocene human interactions with bison suffers from scarcity of faunal remains from most archaeological sites and poor chronological control of paleontological specimens over broad areas of Eastern Beringia. We examined the dating, context, and identification of purported bison bones spatially associated with two late prehistoric archaeological sites in northern Alaska to contribute to a better understanding of bison biogeography and the possible role of these large mammals in prehistoric economies. We confirmed the presence of two bison bones from the 17th century Kangiguksuk archaeological site (49-XBM-012) in northwestern Alaska, but radiocarbon dates older than 30 000 14C years BP for both bones demonstrate that those bison were not hunted by the site occupants. From the Lakeside site (49-KIR-275) in the central Brooks Range, a bone reported to be bison and dated to about 2400 14C years BP was shown through DNA sequencing to be moose (Alces alces). We point to a large set of dated bison specimens from Alaska’s Arctic Slope that suggests bison were locally extinct in north-central and northwestern Alaska by the beginning of the Holocene and were subsequently unavailable to human hunters in that region.

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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207