MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754403224 · doi:10.1017/laq.2017.47

A RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTARY BY KAREN OLSEN BRUHNS, WILLIAM E. BROOKS, AND DEBORAH TRUHAN ON “ECUADORIAN CINNABAR AND THE PREHISPANIC TRADE IN VERMILION PIGMENT: VIABLE HYPOTHESIS OR RED HERRING?”

2017· article· en· W2754403224 on OpenAlexaff
Richard L. Burger, Kris Lane, Colin A. Cooke

Bibliographic record

VenueLatin American Antiquity · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCinnabarVermilionHerringArchaeologyHistoryGeographyEthnologyPigmentArtFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our LAQ paper concluded that cinnabar pigment found by archaeologists in northern Peru was produced at Huancavelica in south-central Peru. In contrast, Bruhns and her colleagues suggest the mines near Azogues in southern Ecuador were an important cinnabar source for prehispanic Ecuador and Peru. In their commentary, they introduce new historic and geologic information to support their view, but a critical analysis demonstrates that it does not undermine our conclusions.

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)0.000
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLatin American AntiquitySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207