MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334001003 · doi:10.7183/0002-7316.76.1.41

New Perspectives on Meadowood Trade Items

2011· article· en· W2334001003 on OpenAlexaff
Karine Taché

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Antiquity · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivilege (computing)Subsistence agricultureIncentiveCirculation (fluid dynamics)SociologyBusinessHistoryArchaeologyEconomicsPolitical scienceMicroeconomicsLawAgricultureEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Early Woodland times, the creation of vast interaction spheres resulted in the widespread circulation of various objects and raw materials across northeastern North America. In this article, I discuss the contexts and spatial distribution of Meadowood trade items from over 240 archaeological sites. Traditionally viewed by William A. Ritchie as cult-related items, Meadowood artifacts have subsequently been interpreted as participating in a risk-buffering strategy. Alternatively, I present arguments supporting the role of Meadowood artifacts as part of a strategy used by a few individuals or corporate groups to increase their status through privilege access to rare and highly valued goods. Socially valued goods can be used in multiple ways and documenting this complexity is a prerequisite to understanding the mechanisms underlying the circulation of goods within the Meadowood Interaction Sphere, the structure of the network, and the incentives of the participating groups. This article stresses the need to move beyond the dichotomy between utilitarian/subsistence-related goods and non-utilitarian/ritual artifacts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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