Unresolved Questions about Site Formation, Provenience, and the Impact of Natural Processes on Bone at the Bluefish Caves, Yukon Territory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent reanalysis of material excavated from the Bluefish Caves, Yukon Territory claims to have identified culturally modified bone dating to 24,000 cal. BP, thereby providing evidence for continuous human occupation of eastern Beringia from the Last Glacial Maximum. However, the recent research largely ignores the history of criticisms of the site and leaves outstanding questions about the site context, associations of lithic artifacts and Last Glacial Maximum radiocarbon dates, and the impact of natural processes on the faunal assemblage, and therefore, how the site fits into the broader Beringian archaeological record. This paper critically analyzes the archaeological record from Bluefish Caves by focusing on evidence for significantly disturbed archaeological contexts and alteration of bone by nonanthropogenic processes. We offer alternative hypotheses explaining the archaeological record at Bluefish Caves based on published data that were not considered in the recent reanalysis. These alternative hypotheses must be addressed before Bluefish Caves can be considered evidence for a Last Glacial Maximum occupation of Beringia. Bluefish Caves remains provocative but unconvincing archaeological evidence for the Beringian Standstill supported by genetic data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".