MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2707630954 · doi:10.3828/hgr.2016.22

Stratigraphy and storytelling

2016· article· en· W2707630954 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHunter Gatherer Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersHakai Institute
KeywordsNarrativeIndigenousStorytellingInterpretation (philosophy)HistoryLegitimacyOral historyArchaeologyStratigraphyPoliticsAnthropologyGeographySociologyLiteratureArtPolitical scienceLawPaleontologyGeologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oral narratives and archaeological chronologies are diachronic systems of knowing the past. In this paper we explore how archaeologists working on the Northwest Coast of North America have imbricated these two ‘forms of knowing’ to achieve a more complete understanding of history. Indigenous communities on the Northwest Coast have transmitted their complex and dynamic oral narratives across generations for millennia. Indigenous knowledge keepers have upheld rigorous standards of transmission in order to maintain the legitimacy of their oral narratives. Archaeologists have therefore looked to Indigenous oral records as a legitimate and informative source for insight and interpretation. Through the application of archaeological survey and dating methods, archaeologists have been able to temporally and spatially anchor events recounted in oral narratives on the Northwest Coast. In concert, the results have added significant contributions to science, history, jurisprudence and other socio-political pursuits.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.265 · 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