Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been controversies over differing opinions in the source of the American Indians. In this paper, the writer criticized the so-called classical theory that the remote ancestors of the American Indians entered America from Asia through the Bering Straits 14,000 ~ 20,000 years ago, worn their “clothes” and carried kindling during the late Paleolithic, no matter how by “boat” across the Bering Sea or by foot through a “Bering Land Bridge” which might once link up Asia and North America during glacial period; and independently proposed a new hypothesis that American Indians might be originated from the Western Rift Valley of North America. On the basis of locus distribution of American ancient human’s remnants, the writer pointed out that American ancient humans might be first originated at Yukon Territory of Canada within the Western Rift Valley of North America (the Basin & Range Province), and then migrated south ward (Yukon Territory → Mojave Desert → Mexico → Peru → Chile). Moreover, American Indians would have long been a presence for 40,000 years, or even 100,000 ~ 200,000 years in the American continents. So far, the logical basis which American Indians came from Asia 14,000 ~ 20,000 years ago was crushed, and derived two inferences: 1) American Indians might be originated from the Western Rift Valley of North America; 2) Only the Eskimo might be the mover eastward from Asia, because of their gene B.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".