MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160105368 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0911226107

Primary State Formation in the Virú Valley, North Coast of Peru

2010· article· en· W2160105368 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐François Millaire

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAVU.S. Geological SurveyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsState (computer science)Radiocarbon datingArchaeologyState formationExcavationGeographyHistoryEthnologyPoliticsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The origins of urban life and functioning states are two of the most fascinating research problems in anthropological archeology and a topic that has intrigued generations of scholars working on the Peruvian north coast. In this region, Andeanists have documented the rise of Moche as a dominant culture during the first millennium A.D., and the emergence of urban life and stately institutions at this society's principal center. Although there is a broad consensus that Moche represents an archaic state, it is still unclear whether it is an example of primary state formation or a case of a second-generation state. To document this question, archaeological excavations were recently carried out at the Gallinazo Group site in the Virú Valley. Results from a radiocarbon dating program indicate that a functioning state probably emerged in this valley during the second century B.C., possibly preceding Moche by a few centuries. These results necessarily raise question regarding the nature of state development on the north coast of Peru and, in particular, whether there was a single center of state development in this region or multiple sites where similar conditions and processes led to the parallel emergence of functioning states.

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)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations37
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207