MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039337190 · doi:10.14430/arctic70248

The Impact of Vegetation on Archaeological Sites in the Low Arctic in Light of Climate Change

2020· article· en· W3039337190 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Henning Matthiesen, Rasmus Fenger-Nielsen, Hans Harmsen, Christian Koch Madsen, Jørgen Hollesen

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVelux Fonden
KeywordsWillowFjordVegetation (pathology)ArcticDisturbance (geology)ShrubPhysical geographyArchaeologyArctic vegetationGeologyGeographyEcologyOceanographyBiologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vegetation is changing across the Arctic in response to increasing temperatures, which may influence archaeological sites in the region. At the moment, very little is known about how different plant species influence archaeological remains. In this study we visited 14 archaeological sites stretching across a climatic gradient from the outer coast to the inner fjords in the Nuuk Fjord area of West Greenland to assess the impact of vegetation growth on archaeological preservation. Examination of the physical disturbance of archaeological layers and materials by roots from different plant species showed that horsetail (Equisetum arvense) was particularly destructive because of its deep penetrating rhizomes and ubiquity across the study area. Willow (Salix glauca) also caused physical disturbance due to a dense root network, but its roots were mainly found in the upper 30 cm of the soil. Focus was also given to the impact from vegetation on the visibility of sites, where growth of willow was found be the main problem, especially in the inner fjords. Historic descriptions and aerial photographs from the sites show that shrub growth was already widespread in the region by the 1930s, but photos of some of the sites investigated show that the willow shrubs are significantly taller today, which has decreased the visibility of site features. The impact from horsetail and willow on archaeological sites may be mitigated using geotextiles and grazing by livestock, but both methods require further studies before being implemented in the study area.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207