Babine wood-stake fish weirs in an eleven kilometer stretch of the Babine River and Nilkitkwa Lake, north central British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In north central British Columbia, the Lake Babine Nation used wood stake fish weirs for many centuries.Weirs facilitated the reliable capture of sufficiently large numbers of salmon (Onchorynchus spp.) to enable the Babine and other Indigenous groups in the area to support significantly larger and more sedentary populations than would otherwise have been possible.Little research has been carried out on similar weirs in the adjacent Fraser watershed, but no archaeological research has been conducted on the Babine weirs until recently.This thesis begins to fill this gap.The present study begins with a survey of the global scholarly literature on riverine and lake wooden fish weirs to ascertain the factors that must have constrained weir design, construction, and management in Babine territory.Environmental factors and other criteria are important to understanding how and why weirs were used in the study area, and why they were so successful prior to their forced removal in 1906.An example of extant remains of a weir on the Babine River is discussed, and information from historic and oral historic sources is provided to develop a better understanding of the Babine weirs, and how they relate to the development of social complexity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".