MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2934775788 · doi:10.1002/oa.2755

Inka sacrificial guinea pigs from Tambo Viejo, Peru

2019· article· en· W2934775788 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lidio M. Valdez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Osteoarchaeology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNew guineaArchaeologyCaviaCeremonyGeographyAncient historyGuinea pigEthnologyBiologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Early Spaniards reported that the Inkas periodically slaughtered hundreds of animals, guinea pigs being the most common sacrificial animals. It is stated that in a single ceremony, hundreds of guinea pigs were killed. Although the ethnohistorical accounts provide good information about the Inka motivations for guinea pig sacrifice, archaeologically, the occurrence of large numbers of sacrificed guinea pigs had not been found. Recent research conducted at the Inka site of Tambo Viejo, in the Acari Valley of the Peruvian south coast, encountered several dozens of sacrificed guinea pigs that overall represent the single largest find known for the entire former Inka territory. In preparation for sacrifice, some of guinea pigs had been adorned with colorful strings that were placed as earrings as well with colorful necklaces also made from colorful strings. Some of the guinea pigs were also enveloped in a rug before burial. Similar evidence is unknown from anywhere within the former Inka territory, making the evidence from Tambo Viejo unparalleled.

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of OsteoarchaeologySame topicAnthropological Studies and InsightsFrench-language works237,207