MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324911815 · doi:10.1017/s0959774312000236

Mide Rock-paintings: Archaeology by Formal and Informed Methods

2012· article· en· W2324911815 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R.A. Weeks

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge Archaeological Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRock artPaintingRepresentation (politics)Interpretation (philosophy)ArchaeologyEthnographyHistoryAnthropologyLinguisticsArt historySociologyPoliticsLawPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rock-art research offers to archaeology a problem-oriented approach. A case study is presented on the interpretation of rock-art from informed ethnographic and formal archaeological perspectives regarding the origins of the Midewiwin, or ‘Grand Medicine Society’. The evidence is twofold. First, some of the rock-paintings that are found over a wide range of the southern Canadian Shield appear to be representative of the Midewiwin. Second, the most probable age estimation of those rock-paintings indicates that the antiquity of Midewiwin is greater than generally presumed by the key anthropological reference literature of the region. Rather than a relatively recent ‘revitalization movement’, the origins of the Midewiwin began in remote antiquity. Broad theoretical and methodological issues of cognitive archaeology and the crisis of representation are addressed, particularly classification, colonialism and cultural linguistics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0060.036
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge Archaeological JournalSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207