Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Excavation of the site began in 2010 by the University of Saskatchewan Department of Archaeology and Anthropology field school, with the participation of the Saskatchewan Archaeological Society field school. A Master of Arts thesis examining the outcome of the first two field seasons is currently being completed by M. Mampé. An analysis of the assemblage from the 2012 and 2013 field seasons comprises this thesis. Four distinct cultural levels are denoted by unique corresponding projectile point complexes and series. The absence of lithic materials in Level 5 has led to it being described as “non-cultural”. The four projectile point complexes and series found at the site include: Plains Side-Notched, Prairie Side-Notched, McKean Series, and Oxbow complex. Due to the significant gap in occupational progression that exists between the Prairie Side-notched and McKean Series occupation levels, it was decided that a geoarchaeological investigation of the site be undertaken to ascertain the geomorphological reasons for its occupational discontinuity as well as provide an overview of site formation processes at the Wolf Willow site. The “hiatus” in cultural occupations at the Wolf Willow site spans approximately 1000 years, from 2500 years B.P. to 1200 years B.P., and is manifested by a discrete sedimentary unit comprised mainly of coarse sand and gravel. It is known from research pertaining to other sites within the Opimihaw Creek valley that hillslope activity began at approximately 7000 years B.P. and slowed nearly 4000 years later. Although no regional analog for landscape instability exists for the period between 3000 and 1200 years B.P., climatic proxy data in the form of stable hydrogen isotopes from bison bone and tooth enamel samples effectively bridge the gap. Furthermore, the composition of sediments gleaned from landforms similar to that on which the Wolf Willow site currently lies show little similarity to one another. These gaps in the research record of the Opimihaw Creek valley make climatic, environmental, and sedimentological correlations difficult on a regional scale, and highlight the importance of implementing geoarchaeology in the interpretation of the Wolf Willow site.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".