Design theory analysis of biface technology at the Botanie Lake Dam site (EcRj 15), south-central British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editor’s note: This article appears as a reprint from Volume 18 due to printing errors. Nexus apologizes to the author for the delay in publishing the work in its entirety. A design analysis is applied to six bifacial tools recovered from the Botanie Lake Dam site (EcRj 15) on the Plateau of southern British Columbia. While these artifacts, selected from the lithic assemblage of this late pre-contact period mat lodge campsite, show some internal variation, they share important characteristics indicative of their use by Plateau peoples. Acute edge angles and less durable raw material suggests that these bifacial tools were used to cut relatively soft contact materials such as herbaceous plants. Their lengthy use lives and multifunctionality make them effective solutions for the requirements of plant and animal processing during a mobile seasonal round. This application of design theory to a small sample of lithic artifacts from a seasonal camp site with an hypothesized focus on root resource harvesting and processing adds to the growing number of studies employing this approach to lithic analysis.
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 | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".