MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017998101 · doi:10.1558/jga.40685

Yukon First Nation use of Copper for End-Blades on Hunting Arrows

2020· article· en· W3017998101 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christian Thomas, P. Gregory Hare, Joshua D. Reuther, Jason Rogers, H. K. Cooper, E. James Dixon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glacial Archaeology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiocarbon datingTimelineArrowPrehistoryArchaeologyCopperGeologyPhysical geographyGeographyPaleontologyMetallurgyMaterials scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Copper metallurgy and bow and arrow technology are widely considered hallmark traits of the Late Prehistoric Period in the northwest of North America (Yukon and Alaska). In recent years, a number of osseous arrow points have been recovered from melting alpine ice patches in the northwest, some with evidence of copper utilization. This article reports on the construction and radiocarbon dating of three osseous arrowheads recovered from Yukon-Alaska ice patches and documents the use of handheld energy-dispersive x-ray florescence (EDXRF) technology to discriminate native copper implements, as well as detect absorbed copper residues from other osseous points. We also reference several other bladed arrow points discovered at ice patches in Yukon and neighboring Alaska to develop a tentative timeline for the use of copper end-blades with osseous arrow points in the northwest.

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 score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Glacial ArchaeologySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207