Human response to habitat suitability during the Last Glacial Maximum in Western Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This research takes a multi‐dimensional approach to the study of the archaeological record of Western Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), combining two distinct components of the human adaptive system (technological organization and mobility) to test the impact of environmental variability on the mobility of Upper Palaeolithic groups. To this end we make use of two models. The first predicts landscape suitability as a function of a suite of environmental variables including topography, climate and inter‐annual climate variability. The second model explores the link between patterns of mobility and technological organization, using lithic retouch frequencies as a proxy for mobility strategies. Combining detailed environmental and lithic data allows us to derive a clearer picture of human adaptation to environmental conditions during a particularly rigorous climatic interval in Western Europe. Our results show that while foragers generally favoured more suitable habitats, logistical mobility strategies were deployed across a wide spectrum of habitat suitability. Residential mobility strategies, on the other hand, tend to occur in relatively less suitable and thus inherently more variable habitats. We conclude that foragers made use of a predominantly logistic strategy during the LGM while adopting more residential strategies in response to local and relatively short‐term fluctuations in the environment. The approach adopted here offers several promising avenues for future research on the ecology of human groups during the LGM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".