MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603776422 · doi:10.1515/opar-2017-0002

An Early Inupiaq Occupation: Observations on a Thule House From Cape Espenberg, Alaska

2017· article· en· W2603776422 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren Norman, T. Max Friesen, Claire Alix, Michael O’Rourke, Owen K. Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Archaeology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchaeologySubsistence agricultureCapeRadiocarbon datingExcavationFish <Actinopterygii>GeographyFisheryBiologyAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes and interprets a well-preserved early Thule semi-subterranean dwelling from Cape Espenberg, Alaska. The house architecture is similar in many respects to other early Thule dwellings with a sub-rectangular main room, long sunken entrance tunnel, and associated kitchen area. However, the presence of narrow side benches and associated flooring differences adds significantly to the variability present in Thule house form. Radiocarbon dates indicate occupations spanning 1300 to 1450 cal CE. Wood analysis suggests that the house underwent at least one rebuilding episode, which seems to have extended the house occupation into the early 15th century. People acquired mostly small seals for their subsistence, but supplemented their diets in the spring and fall with migrating birds, fish, terrestrial mammals, and other marine mammals. This house represents a fairly typical early Thule coastal winter occupation, but careful excavation of a well-preserved house reveals interesting details in house form, wood use, and subsistence patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen ArchaeologySame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207