Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report considers copper crescent-shaped objects from Ontario, contextualizing them within broader archaeological discussions of the Old Copper Complex. I focus on a small assemblage of antiquarian-collected crescents from the Royal Ontario Museum. A literature review comprises the bulk of this report; crescents recovered from sites located in the center of the Old Copper Complex, in current-day Wisconsin and Michigan, help to situate examples in the antiquarian collection. I discuss crescents in terms of their chronological and geographic breadth, their formal variation, and the different depositional contexts in which they are found. Three examples from the antiquarian collection represent novel forms of copper crescent that are not represented in the accepted typology. Two of these, collected approximately 1,600 km apart from one another, closely resemble stone and copper ulu knives, each with a unique copper handle that once bore a haft. By situating this particular collection within broader discussions of native copper, this report demonstrates the continued importance of thinking through poorly-contextualized archaeological collections while remembering the limitations of rigid, typological thinking.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".