MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899993421 · doi:10.1080/00438243.2018.1525310

Retention of old technologies following the end of the Neolithic: microscopic analysis of the butchering marks on animal bones from Çatalhöyük East

2018· article· en· W2899993421 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Archaeology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssemblage (archaeology)ArchaeologyChalcolithicBronze AgeBronzeFlakeGeographyExperimental archaeologyBiologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microscopic analysis of butchering marks on bones from Neolithic to Hellenistic deposits at Çatalhöyük, Turkey, are employed as a proxy measure for identifying the rate and nature of adoption of metallurgy for quotidian activities. During the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods, only stone tools were being used for butchering. In the post-Neolithic strata, however, chipped stone tools continue to dominate the assemblage. This stands in contrast to the larger regional pattern where metal butchering marks dominate after the end of the Early Bronze Age. The authors propose that the continued use of stone tools for processing animal carcasses long after the advent of hard metal alloys is because of the nearby and abundant source of obsidian. Obsidian flake and blade tools remain the raw material of choice for animal-carcass processing over time. The analysis demonstrates that the replacement of stone and adoption of metal butchering tools was not a straightforward affair.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.191 · 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