MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128973000 · doi:10.14430/arctic9

Bone Weathering in a Periglacial Environment: The Tayara Site (KbFk-7), Qikirtaq Island, Nunavik (Canada)

2009· article· en· W2128973000 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Dominique Todisco, Hervé Monchot

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCanadian Physiotherapy AssociationCenter for Northern Studies
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité Laval
KeywordsWeatheringTaphonomyGeologyArcticAssemblage (archaeology)Beluga WhaleGeochemistryPaleontologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bone weathering analysis of the Palaeoeskimo Tayara site (Qikirtaq Island, Nunavik, Canada) documents site taphonomy in the Arctic periglacial environment. Like a majority of sites in the eastern Canadian Arctic, Tayara has a faunal assemblage dominated by marine mammals (seal, walrus, and beluga whale) and some terrestrial mammals (caribou, fox, and bear). Statistical and spatial analyses of five weathering stages reveal that large mammal bone preservation is generally good and does not seem to be influenced by taxonomic and skeletal differences. The good preservation of the faunal assemblage seems to have been favored by the burial of bones and their incorporation into the active layer, which suggests only limited mechanical deterioration (i.e., freeze-thaw or wet-dry cycles, or both) before or at the time of burial. Burial depth partly explains the degree of bone weathering. Indeed, the well-preserved bones are found mainly where burial is associated with thicker overlying sediments. This implies rapid bone burial with a low degree of exposure to temperature changes and atmospheric processes. However, analysis also shows the presence of highly weathered bones where burial is associated with thicker overlying sediments. Consequently, differential bone depth probably does not explain all bone-weathering variability within the site. These results show the importance of examining bone weathering before any archaeozoological and paleoethnographic interpretations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations42
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207