Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food is mundane, a necessity for basic human survival.Yet it is also deeply imbued with cultural, economic, spiritual and political significance.As both quotidian sustenance and social cornerstone, food has always played a central role in human lifeways.Alongside rich depictions of culinary arts in ancient paintings, and lush descriptions in ancient writings, food and its associated materials have left numerous traces in the archaeological record.Once simply considered in caloric terms for subsistence modeling, or sometimes as curiosity in the occasional funerary setting, the study of past foodways has grown exponentially in recent decades to encompass a number of social and environmental topics.Decades of archaeological studies have shed new light on social dynamics as well as ethnoecological issues in the human past, using traces of foodways scattered across media.Ancient food studies makes use of virtually all subdisciplines of archaeology, including ceramic and residue analysis, archaeobotany, zooarchaeology, isotope analysis, features and activity areas, sensory archaeology, and ethnographic research.Significant advances in environmental archaeology and archaeological science have enabled us to view and study human relationships with food in more depth and detail than ever before.The time has come to devote a journal entirely to these topics, to capture the wealth of food studies and facilitate discussion between food scholars.Archaeology of Food and Foodways is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal that welcomes original research on any aspects of the archaeology of food.The journal aims to be a home for archaeologists who, while specialists in particular regions, cultures or artifact types, are also broadly-informed and make use of other forms of material culture.By having a journal focused on the archaeology of food, rather than food more generally, we have created a space where scholars can discuss their work and findings in considerable depth and detail.This is a space where the hard sciences, soft sciences and humanities can be presented side by side and easily enter into dialogue with one another.Since food cuts across cultures and time
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.458 | 0.295 |
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".