MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112789144 · doi:10.21697/seb.2020.18.5.19

The influence of cultural factors on the collapse of the Greenland Norse civilization

2020· article· en· W3112789144 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ryszard F. Sadowski

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia Ecologiae et Bioethicae · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Archaeological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCivilizationHistoryEliteEnvironmental ethicsGeographyAncient historyPolitical scienceArchaeologyPoliticsLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The understanding of the collapse of ancient civilizations is important for the understanding of very complex process happening in our civilization. The Earth is put in danger due to many reasons and some of them do not change throughout history. Because of the global range of human actions, the power reached by contemporary man is much more dangerous than it used to be centuries ago. Therefore, the understanding of the past collapses is crucial for the safety of our global village. The article shows the reasons for the collapse of the Greenland Norse civilization. It seems that the main reason was climate change but it also seems that the Greenland Norse could have survived, or at least postponed the collapse. The author indicates that cultural factors were the roots of ecological degradation and the lack of economic adaptation. The Norse knew the Inuit and their adaptive strategies but did not learn from them. It seems that the collapse of the Greenland Norse civilization was the choice of the Norse’s elite. The leaders kept the society in a risky balance in order to rule over them, but finally, the fragile equilibrium was shattered and caused the collapse.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia Ecologiae et BioethicaeSame topicHistorical and Archaeological StudiesFrench-language works237,207