MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922094836 · doi:10.1080/00320447.2019.1585409

Plant remains and associated insects from the Millipede site (13ML361), a burned earthlodge in southwest Iowa

2019· article· en· W2922094836 on OpenAlexfundno aff
William H. Green, Ronald C. Schirmer, William T. Billeck

Bibliographic record

VenuePlains Anthropologist · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsMillipedeDomesticationBiologyArchaeologyFrassInsectGeographyEcologyLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Millipede site is a Nebraska variant (Central Plains tradition) lodge dating to ca. AD 1300. The structure had burned, preserving a rich array of plant remains and insects. Elm was the principal wood used in lodge construction and hophornbeam (ironwood) was also heavily employed. Maize (mostly 10-row) was plentiful, and common beans also were present. Over 3,600 goosefoot (Chenopodium cf. berlandieri) seeds were recovered, most of which derive from a domesticated variety. Other abundant native domesticated plants included sumpweed and tobacco. Charred insect larvae, mostly darkling beetles (false wireworms), were associated with food remains in the bottom of an open storage pit and on the lodge floor. We conclude that the lodge’s residents vacated and intentionally burned the structure. Insect infestation may have contributed to the residents’ decision to burn the lodge, but burning also might have formed part of a closing ritual associated with decommissioning the dwelling.

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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlains AnthropologistSame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207