Unearthing archives : an examination of documents generated in the course of archaeological fieldwork in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archaeology is a science that destroys the very evidence it wishes to study. Archaeologists must therefore clearly document all stages of their work. In Canada, legislation dictates that all artefacts recovered from archaeological activity must be deposited in an archaeological repository. In most cases only copies of a final report are required to be submitted to the provincial government department responsible for archaeology. This thesis sought to discover what happens to the documents generated from archaeological activity and whether they are of value to archaeologists. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews and surveys, and a review of current literature on archaeological practice. It was found that archaeologists place a high value on the documents they generate during an archaeological project and wish that they be kept in perpetuity; however, a lack of recordkeeping standards and of a relationship based on trust between archaeologists and archaeological repositories has led to poor record keeping practices amongst archaeologists in both academic and consulting environments and few transfers to repositories. The few documents that are transferred to repositories are rarely processed according to archival methodology for preservation and they are not easily accessible to researchers or the public. Thus, this thesis is concluded by a series of recommendations aimed to ensure that the documentary by-products of archaeological activity be maintained and preserved as reliable and authentic evidence of the projects to which they relate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".