Understanding "Clovis" Fluted Point Variability in the Northeast: A Perspective from the Debert Site, Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares fluted points from the Debert site, Nova Scotia, with assemblages of or Clovis-like fluted points from across the Midwest and Northeast regions. The focus is on compa- rison of continuous variables that previous research has suggested may be useful in dis- tinguishing regional, temporal, and artifact life-history variation. The results indicate that while Debert points are most similar to those from such sites as Vail, Maine, and Lamb, New York, they differ significantly in certain characteristics. It is also concluded that the Debert points represent a very exhausted assemblage in comparison to other reported sites. In particular, the Debert assemblage includes a large number of forms with sub-triangular outlines, which all evidence suggests represent the use and reshaping of snapped tips derived from an initial larger, more parallel-sided form. Possible explana- tions for this emphasis are suggested. Resume. Cet article compare les pointes a cannelure provenant du site de Debert en Nouvelle Ecosse avec des assemblages de pointes a cannelure « Clovis » ou « appa- rentes a Clovis » du Midwest et du Nord-Est americain. Nous mettons l'accent sur la com- paraison de variables continues qui, selon des etudes anterieures, aident a distinguer les variations regionales, temporelles, et celles associees aux modifications subies par l'artefact a travers son histoire. Les resultats indiquent que meme si les pointes de Debert ressemblent davantage a celles de sites comme Vail dans l'etat du Maine, ou Lamb, dans l'etat de New York, elles presentent des differences importantes pour certaines carac- teristiques. En comparaison avec d'autres sites etudies, nous concluons egalement que les pointes de Debert sont dans l'ensemble epuisees. Notons en particulier que la collec- tion de Debert comprend un grand nombre de formes avec des contours subtriangulaires, ce qui suggere l'utilisation et le refaconnage des extremites fracturees provenant de formes a l'origine plus grandes et aux bords plus paralleles. Nous proposons des explica- tions possibles pour ce phenomene.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".