Techniques for Integrating Macrobotanical and Microbotanical Datasets: Examples from Pre-Hispanic Northwestern Honduras
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What are useful quantitative approaches in situations with highly variable data quantities, contexts, and sampling strategies? How can paleoethnobotanical findings be interpreted without over-representing data or selling results short? Described here are several major issues and potential solutions. The four sites of the study are located northwestern Honduras, a region with fairly hostile environments for paleoethnobotanical preservation. For this reason, several types of botanical residues are combined to provide a more holistic picture of past ethnobotanical practices. In some cases, these data prove to be complementary, while in others, they are corroborative. This article includes tactics for integrating multiple sample protocols, multiple and overlapping diagnostic elements, multiple and overlapping clade categories, multiple and overlapping samples in a single locus, multiple and overlapping formation processes, and multiple and overlapping cultural practices. In each section, the issue, sampling strategies, quantitative approaches, and a few results are described.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it