Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to put various findings concerning settlement size of the Orochon in order. The Orochon settlements were investigated by means of fieldwork mainly by Japanese scholars from the 1950s to 1960s, while on the other hand Chinese scholars depended upon the elders' memories concerning their hunting-gathering way of life before 1940. As a result, the settlements of the Orochon as hunter-gatherers in many cases consisted of several households from 1900 to 1940. There were a few cases where one settlement consisted of just one household. So to speak, the spatial distribution of households was not the scattered settlement pattern. So far the residential mobility has been found in the world hunter-gatherer societies, such as those of the San, Mbuti Pygmie, Hadza, Hare Indian, Inuit, and Ainu. This was caused by the inter-settlement movement of households. The residents of the settlements were found in different settlements before the time they were surveyed. Theoretically, the residential mobility did not cause the dispersed settlement pattern. The settlement size and pattern suggest that fluid residential mobility was commonin the Orochon as hunter-gatherers from 1900 to 1940.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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 teacher head, 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".