Halibut Use on the Northwest Coast of North America: Reconciling Ethnographic, Ethnohistoric, and Archaeological Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), though of varying importance to First Nations across the Northwest Coast of North America, was a particularly important resource for the Haida, Tlingit, Nuu-chah-nulth, and Makah living on the exposed outer coast of the region. The dietary importance and scale of halibut use, however, are difficult to determine due to seemingly inconsistent ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and archaeological accounts. Among the Haida and Makah, ethnographic descriptions highlight the importance of both halibut and salmon; early historic accounts mention halibut repeatedly, but only rarely mention salmon; while archaeological data point to a high abundance of salmon, and reveal only low, though persistent, quantities of halibut. Drawing on examples from Haida and Makah territories, this paper examines these various lines of evidence and explores possible biases that account for the differences in the importance and relative abundance of salmon and halibut that they reflect. We aim to compare these variable sources of data to gain greater insight into the nature of halibut use throughout the Late Holocene on the Northwest Coast.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".