The Emergence and Transmission of Metallurgical Technology for Subsistence Activities in Daily Life in Northern Europe: A Microscopic Zooarchaeological Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origin of metallurgy is usually monitored via the appearance and frequency of various types of metal items. Quantifying the distribution of metal versus stone tool types over time and space can provide insight into the processes underlying the introduction and diffusion of a functional metallurgical technology for subsistence activities, but is a very limited approach. By quantifying the relative frequency of metal versus stone tool slicing cut marks in butchered animal bone assemblages, it becomes possible to identify and map the introduction and spread of metallurgy into and across a region. Prehistoric data from central Poland (from the Early Neolithic, ca. 5400 b.c., through the Early Iron Age, ca. 450 b.c.) are used to calculate the frequency of use and relative importance of stone and metal implements over time. The results clearly demonstrate that metal tools are adopted slowly throughout the entire length of the Bronze Age and that the advent of the Bronze Age did not entail the wholesale disappearance of lithics for butchering animals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".