MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737610451 · doi:10.14430/arctic4660

Archaeoentomological Perspectives on Dorset Occupations in Newfoundland: A Case Study from the Site of Phillip’s Garden (EeBi-1)

2017· article· en· W2737610451 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Frédéric Dussault, Trevor Bell, Vaughan Grimes

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsGeographyArchaeologySubarctic climateArcticPopulationFlora (microbiology)Range (aeronautics)Vegetation (pathology)EcologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dorset Paleo-Inuit occupied the island of Newfoundland for over 800 years (1990 BP to 1180 BP), producing a unique and identifiable archaeological record. Despite this, our current understanding of this sea-mammal hunting population is essentially based on past analysis of architecture, artefacts, and animal remains. While these data show that the Dorset intensively used sites at different locations through the Arctic and Subarctic, very little information is known regarding their impact on their surroundings and the environment. Our research is based on soil samples collected at the site of Phillip’s Garden, which is considered to be one of the most intensely occupied sites within the Dorset culture’s geographic range. Beetles, which are known to be ecological specialists, were used as a proxy in this research in order to document the composition and fluctuation in vegetation, and environmental change through time at the site. The analysis demonstrates that the Dorset communities of Phillip’s Garden harvested trees, and modified the environment and the flora surrounding their settlement more intensively than previously thought.

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)0.001
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 score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207