MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920993432 · doi:10.21112/.ita.2014.1.30

The Distribution of Passenger Pigeon on Caddo Sites in the Trans-Mississippi South

2014· article· en· W2920993432 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy K. Perttula, Laura H. Nightengale, David H. Jurney

Bibliographic record

VenueIndex of Texas Archaeology Open Access Grey Literature from the Lone Star State · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsRed River College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodlandArchaeologyRange (aeronautics)Period (music)GeologyGeographyStructural basinPaleontologyEcologyBiologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following up on the discovery of 10 passenger pigeon elements from one bird in a Caddo burial feature (Burial 52) at the Mitchell site (41BW4) on the Red River in Bowie County, we have documented the distribution of passenger pigeon on Caddo sites in the Trans-Mississippi South. To date, we have identified 10 Caddo sites dating between ca. A.D. 1160-1710 with passenger pigeon bones, along with two Woodland period sites (generally predating ca. A.D. 800-900) in the region. These sites range as far east as the Saline River basin in Southwest Arkansas, as far west as the George C. Davis (41CE19) and Spike (41DT16) sites in East Texas, as far north as the Spiro site (34Lf40) in eastern Oklahoma, and as far south as the McLelland site (16BO236) in Northwest Louisiana, primarily situated in the Pineywoods. As Jackson and Jackson have noted, the passenger pigeons found on Caddo sites appear to reflect a “southward and westward extension of their range during the Late Woodland period (ca. A.D. 700-1000) that continues into the Caddo era (ca. A.D. 1000-1500), likely reaching East Texas sometime shortly after A.D. 1000.”

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndex of Texas Archaeology Open Access Grey Literature from the Lone Star StateSame topicArchaeology and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207