Using Computer Modelling and Virtual Reality to Explore the Ideological Dimensions of Thule Whalebone Architecture in Arctic Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arctic archaeologists have long suspected that the whalebones used to construct semi-subterranean winter houses by Thule culture peoples were symbolically resonant. These assumptions are based on observations of the non-utilitarian use of jaw bones and crania in Thule house ruins, and ethnographic descriptions of architectural symbolism relating to the whale hunt in Historic Alaskan Inupiat houses. In this paper, we use a 3-dimensional computer reconstruction of a semi-subterranean whalebone house to search for visual expressions of whaling-related ritual in Thule architecture. Results suggest that the whalebone superstructure may have been designed to evoke important themes when viewed from specific locations within the house, and under different lighting conditions. These themes, which appear in Inupiat myths and stories, involve the belief that women transform houses into living whales during the time of the hunt. This article will particularly interest: * Archaeologists, anthropologists, and architects interested in indigenous architecture, computer modelling, and virtual reality * Those interested in architectural symbolism Key points: * Arctic prehistory * Thule whalebone houses * Symbolic usage of whalebone in house construction
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 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".