MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2571370420 · doi:10.7183/1045-6635.26.4.550

The Last Groups Standing: Living Abandonment at the Ancient Maya Center of Minanha, Belize

2015· article· en· W2571370420 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Lamoureux‐St‐Hilaire, Scott Macrae, Carmen A. McCane, Evan Parker, Gyles Iannone

Bibliographic record

VenueLatin American Antiquity · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMayaAbandonment (legal)EliteContext (archaeology)ArchaeologyIdeologyEthnologyArtifact (error)HistoryGeographyIdentity (music)Ancient historyGenealogyArtPoliticsPolitical scienceLawAestheticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most archaeologically visible dimension of the Classic Maya Collapse is the abandonment of monumental royal courts. Yet, in some cases, non-elite populations lived for centuries in and around Classic Maya centers without rulers. Processes of abandonment among Classic Maya commoners are detectable and reflect their own ritual and social practices divorced from the ritual performances undertaken by the ruling elite. We study the abandonment context and chronology of three domestic groups from the Contreras Valley, an agricultural community located on the outskirts of the Classic Maya center ofMinanha, Belize. There, several artifact assemblages were deposited at the time of abandonment, representing termination rituals. This study goes beyond the ideological dimension of termination rituals to examine how these ceremonies helped reshape the identity of social groups who were about to abandon their home. We explore how the last inhabitants of a mostly abandoned landscape lived through this process of gradual depopulation. Moreover, we evaluate potential explanations for the archaeological processes behind the occurrence or non-occurrence of termination rituals in different domestic groups.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations48
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLatin American AntiquitySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207