MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988653264 · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-53076-7

Fish and maize: Bayesian mixing models of fourteenth- through seventeenth-century AD ancestral Wendat diets, Ontario, Canada

2019· article· en· W2988653264 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Robert S. Feranec, John P. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Cape TownUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>TributaryFreshwater fishBiologyTaxonEcologyArchaeologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Freshwater and marine fish have been important components of human diets for millennia. The Great Lakes of North America, their tributaries and smaller regional freshwater bodies are important Native American fisheries. The ethnohistorical record, zooarchaeological remains, and isotopic values on human bone and tooth collagen indicate the importance of fish in fourteenth- through seventeenth-century ancestral Wendat diets in southern Ontario, which is bordered by three of the Great Lakes. Maize ( Zea mays ssp. mays ) was the primary grain of Native American agricultural systems in the centuries prior to and following sustained European presence. Here we report new Bayesian dietary mixing models using previously published δ 13 C and δ 15 N values on ancestral Wendat bone and tooth collagen and tooth enamel. The results confirm previous estimates from δ 13 C values that ancestral Wendat diets included high proportions of maize but indicate much higher proportions of fish than has previously been recognized. The results also suggest that terrestrial animals contributed less to ancestral Wendat diets than is typically interpreted based on zooarchaeological records.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.184
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207