MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3142664619 · doi:10.51270/44.2.185

Precontact Native Copper Innovation in British Columbia

2020· article· en· W3142664619 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
H. K. Cooper, Garett Hunt, Nicholas Waber, Carey Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Archaeology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopperHistoryCopper miningArchaeologyPhenomenonAnthropologySociologyPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Copper has figured prominently in discussions of social complexity among Northwest Coast Cultures. Coppers, shield-like sheets of copper variable in size, were a form of lineage wealth displayed, gifted, or ritually destroyed at potlatches; and copper artifacts have been recovered from human burials. The former use of copper is well-documented ethnographically and historically while the latter phenomenon is less well understood. This paper provides an overview of the occurrence of copper in precontact archaeological contexts in British Columbia using published and unpublished literature. Our investigation is framed within a Behavioral Archaeology approach that elicits ideas on copper innovation and all that it entailed. We find that copper is rare in precontact contexts from a province-wide perspective; there was likely more than one instance of native copper innovation; and contrary to previous suggestions, the copper-rich Dene region of south-central Alaska and southwestern Yukon cannot account for most of the precontact examples of copper use in the province. We offer some hypotheses to explain the precontact distribution of copper in BC, including both local invention and diffusion, not in an attempt to deliver the final verdict on this topic, but rather, to stimulate additional research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ArchaeologySame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207