Review of "Global Perspectives on the Archaeology of Islands" International Conference, University of Auckland, 8th-11th December 2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The "Global Perspectives on the Archaeology of Islands" conference held in Auckland, December 2004, was a joint collaboration between the Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, and the Institute of Archaeology (IoA), UCL.The event showcased some 40 papers presented by researchers from around the world, highlighting the growing interest in the archaeology of islands.As stated on the conference website (University of Auckland 2004), the four-day event aimed to bring together "researchers studying the archaeology of islands and island groups throughout the world to examine island archaeology from a global, comparative perspective".Although most participants were based in either New Zealand or Australia, many European, North American and Asian speakers attended the event.In retrospect, no setting could have been better suited to an international conference on islands, New Zealand being the last large island group on earth to have been settled by modern humans, around AD 1250 (Irwin 1992: 169).The organisers, Matthew Campbell (University of Auckland) and James Conolly (UCL, currently at Trent University, Canada), laid out a rich programme of talks and events.The latter included a Powhiri, or traditional Maori welcome, a boat trip to Browns Island to see a Maori pa, or fortified site, and a visit to a local vineyard and winery.The premise that "island cultures possess distinctive, often unique characteristics" (University of Auckland 2004) was thoroughly discussed and occasionally challenged, particularly in the final plenary session, provocatively entitled "What is an Island?".In line with many other recent island-focused events/studies (e.g.Fitzpatrick 2004), the conference followed a thematic approach with four sessions:
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".