Social and ritual determinants of whale bone transport at a classic Thule winter site in the Canadian Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent research has demonstrated that patterning related to harvesting selectivity and architectural bone utilization persists in the surface distribution of bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) bones at classic Thule sites in the Canadian central Arctic, despite scavenging by later non‐whaling Inuit groups. Since skeletal riders with minimal architectural or artifactual utility are associated with carcass portions that were socially and ritually prized ethnographically in North Alaska, this surface record may also preserve spatial structure relating to loci of high status settlement and/or ceremonial activity within sites. Close to 3400 bowhead bones were mapped at the major Thule winter village of Qariaraqyuk, southeast Somerset Island. The results of a principal components analysis of the element distributions are consistent with expectations for special treatment of bowhead flippers, tails, and tongues. These results are supported by excavation data which reveal that flipper and tongue bones were preferentially discarded in the vicinity of wealthy whaling households and a major ceremonial structure. Contrary to the longstanding belief that Thule whale bone assemblages are hopelessly compromised by prehistoric and historic bone transport, these assemblages hold great promise for investigating Thule social and ritual practices. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".