MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593711715 · doi:10.5876/9781607325741.c004

Hopi Weaving and the Colonial Encounter: A Study of Persistence through Change

2017· book-chapter· en· W2593711715 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Press of Colorado eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California MercedUniversity of California, Los AngelesBureau of Indian AffairsNational Park ServiceU.S. Geological SurveySouthern Methodist UniversityUniversity of CambridgeMcDonald Institute for Archaeological ResearchUniversity of ArizonaU.S. Army Corps of EngineersSimon Fraser UniversityArizona State UniversityHarvard UniversityNorthwestern UniversityUniversity of OklahomaLouisiana Board of RegentsAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent PsychiatrySmithsonian Institution
KeywordsHopiPersistence (discontinuity)WeavingColonialismGeographyHistoryZoologyArchaeologyBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

of this volume, have told me that the Columbian Consequences project served as a catalyst for the initial symposium entitled "Transformations during the Colonial Era: Divergent Histories in the American Southwest," subsequently published as this volume.They also asked me to write a few words about the Columbian Consequences effort, from a quarter-century perspective.The roots of Columbian Consequences run back to the late 1980s, a time of considerable stress and not a little self-reflection in the Americanist archaeological community.A decade of repatriation and reburial debate would culminate in the 1990 The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) legislation.Competing paradigms of processual and postprocessual archaeology generated lively conversations about future directions of archaeological theory.The rapid growth of applied archaeology (in the form of cultural resource management) tested the conventionally academic structure of the archaeological profession.Long-standing issues of gender bias clouded archaeological interpretations of the past and the practice of archaeology in the present.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.181 · 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