COASTAL BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE LIGHT OF NORTH PACIFIC MARITIME ADAPTATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent archaeological research indicates that much of the Kroeber model of the development of Northwest Coast maritime adaptation as a river to river-mouth to open sea sequence does not fit the data very well. Maritime adaptation based on the ex- tensive use of marine resources was early and rapid on the northern Northwest Coast, rather than a gradual adaptation by peoples moving from the interior to the protected island environment at the mouth of the Fraser River. Comparative artifact typology in- dicates that the earliest known coastal cultures north of the Strait of Juan de Fuca were more similar in lithic technology to central Alaskan hunting/fishing cultures of the same time period and earlier than to cultures of the adjacent continental interior such as Clovis and its derivatives. Comparative artifact typology, site geography, and early dates at Namu indicate that the peoples there at 9700 BP were part of the same early maritime adaptation evident from the carbon isotope analyses at On-Your-Knees Cave just to the north in Alaska. The actual time of the beginning of the intensive use of salmon, including preservation and storage, is unknown, although it was probably 7000 BP or earlier. The Namu zooarchaeological data indicating intensive salmon use, the data from Glenrose emphasizing cervids, and the sea mammal hunting emphasis at Bear Cove, all at about the same period of 5000-6000 BP, suggests that the settlement pattern of permanent winter villages with preservation and storage of salmon and sea- sonal resource extraction sites was well established by this time. The lower Fraser- Strait of Georgia region of southwestern British Columbia is an early area of cultural cli- max. Sociocultural complexity is evident there by 3600 BP with the appearance of many aspects of the ethnographic pattern.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".