Featuring Wetlands: A Feature Analysis of Wetland Resource Use at DhRp-52, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores wetland resource use at DhRp-52 to develop a better understanding of the inhabitants’ interactions with their wetland environment. A feature analysis of selected feature contents using multiple sources of evidence (i.e., archaeobotany, charcoal analysis, and zooarchaeology) was employed to (a) taxonomically identify seed, bone, and charcoal as indicators of wetland resource use, and (b) assess feature function in relation to resource use. This provides a means to evaluate the suitability of feature analyses for future use at archaeological sites in the region, particularly in wetland contexts. The results of the feature analysis contribute to a more general discussion of regional hunter-gatherer interactions with wetland ecosystems. While many aspects of human landscapes and resource use in the Northwest Coast have been extensively discussed, wetlands have seldom been considered as a specific environmental zone. This study helps to broaden that discussion by presenting new data on the topic, by demonstrating the utility of a feature analysis-based approach, and highlighting the archaeological and ethnographic importance of regional wetlands and their use.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".