MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036069483 · doi:10.1017/aaq.2020.36

Reassessing the Radiocarbon Date from the Buhl Burial from South-Central Idaho and Its Relevance to the Western Stemmed Tradition–Clovis Debate in the Intermountain West

2020· article· en· W3036069483 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher S. Jazwa, Geoffrey M. Smith, Richard L. Rosencrance, Daron Duke, Dan Stueber

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Antiquity · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiocarbon datingArchaeologyRange (aeronautics)ChronologyGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A single radiocarbon date derived from the Buhl burial in south-central Idaho has frequently been used as a data point for the interpretation of the Western Stemmed Tradition (WST) chronology and technology because of the stemmed biface found in situ with the human remains. AMS dating of bone collagen in 1991 produced an age of 10,675 ± 95 14 C BP, immediately postdating the most widely accepted age range for Clovis. The Buhl burial has been cited as evidence that stemmed point technology may have overlapped with Clovis technology in the Intermountain West. We discuss concerns about the radiocarbon date, arguing that even at face value, the calibrated date has minimal overlap with Clovis at the 95.4% range. Furthermore, the C:N ratio of 3.69 in the analyzed collagen is outside of the typical range for well-preserved samples, indicating a postdepositional change in carbon composition, which may make the date erroneously older or younger than the age of the skeleton. Finally, the potential dietary incorporation of small amounts of anadromous fish may indicate that the burial is younger than traditionally accepted. For these reasons, we argue that the Buhl burial cannot be used as evidence of overlap between WST and Clovis.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.203 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican AntiquitySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207