Comparing fill and floor: <scp>A</scp> taphonomic framework for understanding depositional histories in a semi‐subterranean house in north‐west Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Collapsed semi‐subterranean dwelling features are often excellent sources for well‐preserved faunal, artefactual, and architectural material in the Arctic. However, collapsed structures may be reused after house abandonment as storage areas, hunting blinds, refuse areas, or other resource facilities. Despite their reuse and possibly different occupation period, artefacts and faunal material from the fill are often employed, uncritically, to interpret the original house occupation. Within a Thule Inuit house depression, I employ an analytical framework as a heuristic device to compare the social nature of the various faunal deposits and the processes that affected them. Analyses show that the taphonomic processes alter the fill more extensively and intensively than the underlying floor. The floor shows little post‐depositional disturbance and is evidence for a cold‐season occupation. By contrast, the fill is a palimpsest of multiple occupations, some possibly related to the house occupation. Archaeologists need to differentiate fill from floor contexts when talking about the original occupation because the taphonomy of the two contexts indicate each is a distinct set of assemblages with differing operative processes.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".