MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329076624 · doi:10.2307/25063066

A Frontier Perspective on Paracas Society and Nasca Ethnogenesis

2006· article· en· W2329076624 on OpenAlexaff
Hendrik Van Gijseghem

Bibliographic record

VenueLatin American Antiquity · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontierEthnogenesisContext (archaeology)Settlement (finance)HistoryEconomic geographyPerspective (graphical)HierarchyArchaeologyGeographyAnthropologySociologyPolitical scienceArtEconomicsVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has long been recognized that the Nasca culture (ca. A.D. 1–750) of the Peruvian south coast finds its roots in the Paracas society (ca. 800 B.C.–A.D. 1). Yet the social mechanisms responsible for the innovations that characterize the transition are poorly known. The southern Nasca region, which became the most dynamic region in terms of ceremonial life and intervalley integration, however, was never an important area of Paracas occupation. In this article I use literature on migration and frontier development to explain the genesis of Nasca society. Four phenomena that are common on historical frontiers seem to have been at play in the southern Nasca region: initial simplification of hierarchy, pioneer effect, “wealth-in-people,” and factionalism. Based on data from excavations at La Puntilla, a settlement that spanned the Late Paracas—Initial Nasca transition, I argue that the needs of interregional integration and cooperation following initial settlement of the frontier by Paracas populations and subsequent demographic growth prompted the genesis of Nasca society. The proposed long-term scenario also provides a context for later innovations in water management and agricultural intensification.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations43
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLatin American AntiquitySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207