MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460611140

Neither Seen Nor Heard: Looking for Children in Northwest Coast Archaeology

2010· article· en· W2460611140 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
April Ruttle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Archaeology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtEthnologySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les enfants constituaient une partie importante de toutes les populations du passe, mais ils sont encore souvent negliges par la recherche archeologique. Les raisons de cette absence tiennent a des obstacles a la fois conceptuels et pratiques: la transposition au present de la conception euro-americaine des enfants, vus comme dependants et passifs, et la difficulte d'identifier clairement les signatures archeologiques associees aux enfants-en particulier dans les contextes prehistoriques. Dans cet article, je me concentre sur l'archeologie de la region de la Cote Nord-Ouest, ou l'on ne trouve que des recits ethnographiques limites concernant les enfants, et quasiment aucune mention d'eux dans les rapports archeologiques. Apres avoir expose les facteurs qui contribuent a rendre les enfants invisibles dans l'interpretation archeologique en general, j'avance que rien ne justifie le presuppose que les enfants de la Cote Nord-Ouest d'autrefois aient ete improductifs. Je presente des recherches archeologiques et ethno-archeologiques-menees sur la Cote Nord-Ouest et dans d'autres regions-susceptibles d'indiquer la voie a l'avenir pour des analyses de la vie des enfants de la Cote Nord-Ouest dans le passe. Il est possible, en particulier, d'utiliser des modeles de cueillette et des analyses fauniques pour refleter les strategies de subsistance propres aux enfants.

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)0.001
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 score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ArchaeologySame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207