Diet Transition or Human Migration in the Chinese Neolithic? Dietary and Migration Evidence from the Stable Isotope Analysis of Humans and Animals from the Qinglongquan Site, China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Qinglongquan site, China, includes materials from the Neolithic Qujialing (3000–2600 bc ) and Shijiahe (2600–2200 bc ) periods, and lies within the Sui‐Zao Corridor that connects the Nanyang Basin in the north and the Hanjiang River Plain in the south. Previous research suggested a dietary shift from rice‐based to millet‐based agriculture between the Qujialing and Shijiehe periods at this site. The reason for this dietary shift is still unclear, and it is possible because of immigration into the region by people who already had a mainly C 4 ‐millet‐based diet (i.e. from Northern China). In this study, we examine the carbon ( δ 13 C) and nitrogen ( δ 15 N) results and present sulfur ( δ 34 S) isotope analyses of human ( n = 27) and animal ( n = 36) samples to test the hypothesis of whether this dietary shift was due to migration. The δ 34 S values of the Qujialing humans ranged from 5.5‰ to 8.1‰ [average 6.5‰ ± 1.0 ( n = 7)], and the δ 34 S values of the Shijiahe humans ranged from 4.1‰ to 7.4‰ [average 5.8‰ ± 0.9 ( n = 18)]. Because these values overlapped and were similar to the animal δ 34 S results [4.3‰ to 8.8‰, average of 6.6 ± 1.3‰ ( n = 31)], no evidence of migration was found for the humans with the different diets at the Qinglongquan site. Copyright © 2015 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it