Form and function of projectile points and the trajectory of newfoundland prehistory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'adoption de la technologie de l'arc et la fleche par les groupes de la periode « Recent Indian » a Terre Neuve est acceptee par les archeologues sur la base d'observations des donnees archeologiques qui demeurent non verifiees. Nous presentons une etude sur la periode au tour de 1000 BP, periode ou le complexe « Beaches » est remplace par le complexe « Little Passage» et durant laquelle l'arc et la fleche sont presumes avoir ete introduits. L'analyse metrique de 840 pointes de projectile confirme cette transformation technologique mais met en question l'idee que la fonction d'une pointe de projectile peut etre reliee a des caracteristiques couramment utilisees pour definir ces complexes, notamment la presence d'encoches laterales ou en coin. Cette analyse suggere que l'arc et la fleche n'aient pas remplace le propulseur et le dard de facon soudaine, mais plutot que les deux technologies etaient complementaires chez les groupes Recent Indian. Finalement, nous suggerons que l'adoption de l'arc et la fleche pourrait etre reliee au depart ou a la disparition des populations paleoesquimaudes dorsetiennes du territoire de Terre Neuve.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".