MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923633705 · doi:10.1017/laq.2018.77

A Late Postclassic (ca. AD 1350–1521) Border Shrine at the Site of Tayasal, Petén, Guatemala

2019· article· en· W2923633705 on OpenAlexaff
Christina T. Halperin, Zachary Hruby

Bibliographic record

VenueLatin American Antiquity · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLatin American history and culture
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMayaWildernessEphemeral keyFrontierArchaeologyGeographyLiminalityMesoamericaHuman settlementNatural (archaeology)Settlement (finance)PoliticsHistoryAncient historyEthnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shrines were a regular component of ceremonial architecture in the public plazas of Postclassic Maya centers. Small shrines and natural landmarks such as caves and outcrops at the borders of settlements or in wilderness locations also served, and in some cases continue to serve, as important ritual loci for Maya peoples. These more peripheral locales were not only critical access points to the supernatural, but also served to delineate places. Because these border features, which represent only a given moment in a constantly shifting social and political landscape, are sometimes unmodified or are inconspicuous, they are relatively ephemeral and difficult to identify in the archaeological record. This paper documents a Late Postclassic shrine paired with a natural feature, a small hill, from the site of Tayasal in Petén, Guatemala. We argue that it served as a border shrine. Paired with the small hill, the two embodied a liminal frontier, not only between earthly and spiritual realms but also between settled and unsettled space.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 venueLatin American AntiquitySame topicLatin American history and cultureFrench-language works237,207