MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801870221 · doi:10.1017/aaq.2018.18

LATE DORSET TRIANGULAR MIDPASSAGES IN THE CANADIAN ARCTIC AND NORTHWEST GREENLAND: ORIGINS AND DISPERSAL

2018· article· en· W2801870221 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Darwent, James M. Savelle, Christyann M. Darwent, Arthur S. Dyke, Hans Lange, Genevieve LeMoine, Claude Pinard

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Antiquity · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeninsulaArcticBiological dispersalGeographyArchaeologyPeriod (music)The arcticPhysical geographyOceanographyLand bridgeGeologyDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Midpassages are the most recognizable architectural feature associated with the entire Paleoeskimo period (2800 BC–AD 1300) in the Canadian and Greenlandic Arctic. Usually built of stone, midpassages are rectangular-shaped axial structures that run through the center of tent rings and semisubterranean house depressions. However, a unique triangular form of midpassage developed in association with the Late Dorset complex in the Boothia Peninsula area of the Canadian Arctic around AD 400. Unlike the rectangular-shaped varieties that were built contemporaneously across the Arctic, distribution of the triangular form is limited, and occurrences are rare. Initially, construction appears restricted to the Boothia Peninsula region, where the form persisted for the subsequent 400 years. After AD 900, they are found in Inglefield Land, Greenland, and a few other locations in the Canadian Arctic where they continued to be built until around AD 1200, representing an over 800-year period in a remarkably unvarying configuration. Further, these triangular midpassage structures very likely represent a regional architectural variant that moved northward with the Late Dorset diaspora after AD 800.

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)0.000
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 score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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