Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Colonising hunter‐gatherer populations in North and Central America at the end of the Pleistocene utilised Clovis technology. Clovis technology is known for ‘fluted’ flaked stone points that were used to hunt prey and served as knives, but it also included the production, use and discard of a diversity of other implements made from stone, bone and other materials. Clovis technology lasted for several centuries, perhaps as long as a millennium and a half. Clovis technology shares some similarities with Siberian Paleolithic technology, which is consistent with current genetic evidence, indicating that ancestors of the people using Clovis technology originated in Asia. Clovis technology, as archaeologists generally recognise it, likely emerged piecemeal as people dispersed into the New World – some aspects of it can be tied to ancestry in Siberia, while other aspects are likely indigenous to North and Central America. Several studies have shown that Clovis technology was subjected to both micro‐ and macroevolutionary forces. Key Concepts ‘Clovis technology’ is just an archaeologist's shorthand to refer to what is in actuality an inferred, fuzzy set of human–tool interactions found across North and Central America during the terminal Pleistocene. There is a diversity of Clovis tools made from stone, bone and other materials. Evidence for Clovis technology can be found across the lower 48 states of the United States, throughout southern Canada, and Central America. The ancestors of people who used Clovis technology came from Asia. What archaeologists generally recognise, and refer to, as Clovis technology likely emerged piecemeal as people from Asia dispersed into the New World. Clovis technology evolved at both the micro‐ and macroevolutionary scales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.273 | 0.114 |
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".