MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104643735 · doi:10.1525/ap3a.2002.11.1.191

Chapter 12. Spatial Narratives of Death, Memory, and Transcendence

2002· article· en· W2104643735 on OpenAlexaff
Aubrey Cannon

Bibliographic record

VenueArcheological Papers of the American Anthropological Association · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeRepresentation (politics)PoliticsPerspective (graphical)Transcendence (philosophy)Scale (ratio)Function (biology)SociologyPerceptionHistoryCognitive psychologyEpistemologySocial psychologyAestheticsPsychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceGeographyLiteratureCartographyArtLawArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of the spatial and historical dimensions of mortuary expressions, and explicit recognition of their basis in personal, social, and symbolic memory, are the foundations of an emerging approach to the archaeology of death. Spatial representations of death are viewed in this perspective as elements in the ritual creation and maintenance of personal and social memories of the dead to serve the needs and interests of the living. Examination of a wide range of case studies shows that the scale and form of mortuary expressions are a function of the social and political scale for which memories are relevant and the circumstances in which their representation remains meaningful and effective. The growth and transformation of these expressions over time can therefore be read as a historical narrative of individual choices made in response to spatial representations of the immediate past and perceptions of current and anticipated social and political circumstances.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArcheological Papers of the American Anthropological AssociationSame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207