MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316507087 · doi:10.7183/1045-6635.21.3.274

Cloth Production and Economic Intensification in the Area Surrounding Chichen Itza

2010· article· en· W2316507087 on OpenAlexaff
Traci Ardren, T. Kam Manahan, Julie K. Wesp, Alejandra Alonso

Bibliographic record

VenueLatin American Antiquity · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLatin American history and culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMayaMesoamericaCraftGeographyArchaeologyPoliticsPeriod (music)Subsistence agricultureCurculionidaeEthnologyHistoryAncient historyArtAgriculturePolitical scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent investigations at the site of Xuenkal on the plains north of Chichén Itzá provide evidence of the changing regional political environment during the Terminal Classic Period (A.D. 900–1000). This paper examines a collection of spindle whorls recovered during the 2005, 2006, and 2007 field seasons of the Proyecto Arqueológico Xuenkal (PAX) as evidence for intensification of craft production. Through this analysis and comparison with spindle whorl collections from other Lowland Maya sites, we suggest the inhabitants of Xuenkal rapidly adapted to changing economic demands by increasing the amount of cloth produced in their residential settings, perhaps in response to increased tribute demands that emanated from the dominant political power of the region. Spinning and weaving is associated with the female gender during the Classic Period in Mesoamerica. Thus, intensification of this gendered activity not only produced excess materials for the state, but also reinforced its gender ideology. Analysis of these artifacts adds to the knowledge of Maya cloth production and addresses the nature of Chichén Itzá's influence on regional sites during the height of its influence in the Terminal Classic period.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations47
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLatin American AntiquitySame topicLatin American history and cultureFrench-language works237,207