Bibliographic record
Abstract
For thousands of years, chenopod (Chenopodium berlandieri) was a popular crop among Indigenous populations of Eastern North America. It was grown and then traded between communities. In 2010, archaeologists came upon a cache of charred chenopod seeds in Tutela Heights, near Brantford, Ontario. After examination, the seeds were identified as Chenopodium berlandieri subsp. jonesianum, a species common in states such as Illinois, but previously unseen north from Kentucky. The seeds were not grown near Tutela Heights, but were exchanged along a trade route and their origin remains unknown. By reviewing current literature, this paper proposes various methods that may help in determining the chenopod’s origin. With the analysis of sedaDNA, used in tandem with chenopod DNA, it may be possible to determine whether chenopod was grown in certain areas or not. The inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge from communities who lived in these areas could help to clarify where the chenopod originated as well as the possible trade route it travelled. Finally, further development of soil compound analysis could help with determining where seeds were grown. These findings would not simply reveal the Tutela Heights chenopod’s origins, but would also provide valuable information on the activities of the communities who lived in these areas thousands of years ago.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".