MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203470166 · doi:10.1007/s10816-021-09535-5

Provisioning an Early City: Spatial Equilibrium in the Agricultural Economy at Angkor, Cambodia

2021· article· en· W3203470166 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sarah Klassen, Scott G. Ortman, José Lobo, Damian Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Archaeological Method and Theory · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionJames S. McDonnell FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAgricultureProductivityProvisioningAgricultural productivityPopulationProduction (economics)GeographyLeverage (statistics)EconomyAgricultural economicsEconomicsEconomic geographyEconomic growthArchaeologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A dominant view in economic anthropology is that farmers must overcome decreasing marginal returns in the process of intensification. However, it is difficult to reconcile this view with the emergence of urban systems, which require substantial increases in labor productivity to support a growing non-farming population. This quandary is starkly posed by the rise of Angkor (Cambodia, 9th-fourteenth centuries CE), one of the most extensive preindustrial cities yet documented through archaeology. Here, we leverage extensive documentation of the Greater Angkor Region to illustrate how the social and spatial organization of agricultural production contributed to its food system. First, we find evidence for supra-household-level organization that generated increasing returns to farming labor. Second, we find spatial patterns which indicate that land-use choices took transportation costs to the urban core into account. These patterns suggest agricultural production at Angkor was organized in ways that are more similar to other forms of urban production than to a smallholder system. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10816-021-09535-5.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Archaeological Method and TheorySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207