Hunting High and Low: Gravettian Hunting Weapons from Southern Italy to the Russian Plain
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current paper aims at describing and analysing the backed tools found in two Early Gravettian sites separated geographically from each other: Grotta Paglicci (layer 23-22) in Italy, and Kostenki 8 (layer II) in Russia. A similarity between the lithic assemblages of the two sites, and other cultural aspects, has been reported by authors over many decades. The analysis of the backed tools has created the opportunity to apply the same methodological approach to verify the resemblance and potential causes for the similarity, and also to address broader considerations on Gravettian hunting strategies and the modalities and timing of the spread of new techniques, whether related to physical movement of people or assimilation of ideas. The perception is that, during the Gravettian period, shared symbolic behaviours and subsistence strategies linked people living in completely different environments with completely different resources, from the temperate regions of southern Italy, to the very cold Russian plains. This point of view cannot be questioned, but it tends to flatten an articulated palimpsest of human generations and to underestimate the very low demographic density of Prehistoric Europe.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it