MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043920626 · doi:10.7202/1071940ar

Les pointes de projectiles polies du site de Nunalleq (village d’Agaligmiut), sud-ouest de l’Alaska : Une nouvelle approche des <i>Bow-and-Arrow</i> Wars chez les Yupiit

2019· article· fr· W3043920626 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yan Axel Gómez Coutouly, Rick Knecht, Édouard Masson-MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes/Inuit/Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArts and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La fouille du site de Nunalleq (GDN-248) en territoire yup’ik a révélé une succession d’au moins trois niveaux allant vers 1570-1630 après J.C. à 1645–1675 après J.C. correspondant à plusieurs phases de construction et d’habitation d’une maison semi-souterraine de l’époque précontact du village historiquement appelé Agaligmiut. Les occupations du site s’inscrivent dans le cadre historique des Bow-and-Arrow Wars , et le dernier niveau concerne justement la destruction et l’abandon du village après un raid par un groupe extérieur. Cette étude se focalise sur l’outillage en pierre, et plus précisément sur les pointes de projectiles. Il s’agit donc d’étudier cette période de conflits à travers un des types d’outils ayant justement servi à ce conflit : les armatures de flèches. L’étude de ce matériel a permis de mieux comprendre le déroulement de l’attaque qui a conduit à la destruction et l’abandon du village, ainsi que certains aspects de la période des Bow-and-Arrow Wars , qui demeure relativement peu connue d’un point de vue archéologique.

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 score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

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 studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes/Inuit/StudiesSame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207