Social life and technical practice: an analysis of the osseous tool assemblage at the dorset palaeoeskimo site of Philip's Garden, Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this thesis is to provide an understanding of the social nature of technological life at Phillip's Garden (EeBi-1), a large Middle Dorset site in northwestern Newfoundland. This is accomplished through the analysis of its osseous (bone, antler and ivory) tool industry. The assemblage is systematically presented providing morphological details for tool types, variation in forms and materials selected for their manufacture. In addition, the frequency of tool forms is recorded over the temporal and spatial extent of the site, and evidence of their manufacture and use is explored. Technological practice is defined in a thoroughly inclusive way, not simply as the material outcome of production, but immersed in social action that reinforces relationships among people, the materials they manipulate and the settings of technological events. The results of this analysis reveal a dynamic and unique community at Phillip's Garden where occupants transformed, over the course of its occupation, some practices of material acquisition, manufacture and use, dwelling occupation, tool making, and hunting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".