MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902169011 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav0280

Radiocarbon re-dating of contact-era Iroquoian history in northeastern North America

2018· article· en· W2902169011 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sturt W. Manning, Jennifer Birch, Megan Anne Conger, Michael Dee, Carol B. Griggs, Carla S. Hadden, Alan Hogg, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Samantha Sanft, Peter Steier, Eva Maria Wild

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaCollege of Arts and Sciences, Cornell UniversityUniversity of Georgia
KeywordsRadiocarbon datingPrehistoryArchaeologyChronologyGeologyHistoryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A time frame for late Iroquoian prehistory is firmly established on the basis of the presence/absence of European trade goods and other archeological indicators. However, independent dating evidence is lacking. We use 86 radiocarbon measurements to test and (re)define existing chronological understanding. Warminster, often associated with Cahiagué visited by S. de Champlain in 1615-1616 CE, yields a compatible radiocarbon-based age. However, a well-known late prehistoric site sequence in southern Ontario, Draper-Spang-Mantle, usually dated ~1450-1550, yields much later radiocarbon-based dates of ~1530-1615. The revised time frame dramatically rewrites 16th-century contact-era history in this region. Key processes of violent conflict, community coalescence, and the introduction of European goods all happened much later and more rapidly than previously assumed. Our results suggest the need to reconsider current understandings of contact-era dynamics across northeastern North America.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations54
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207