MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4319659630 · doi:10.1017/9781108878142.007

The Transition to Sedentism

2023· book-chapter· en· W4319659630 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyClimate changeProductivityPopulationChannel (broadcasting)ClimatologyPhysical geographyEcologyDemographyEconomicsGeologyBiologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We build on the model of Chapter 3 to explain how sedentism could have developed in response to better climate conditions involving higher means and lower variances for temperature and rainfall. Sedentism is defined to mean a willingness of human populations to stay at the same site for multiple generations despite occasional periods of low productivity in relation to other sites. We identify three causal channels leading to sedentism. First, there is a short-run channel where climate improvement leads agents to remain at sites when weather there is temporarily bad, because when conditions are harsh, they are less harsh than they were under the previous climate regime. Second, there is a long-run channel where better climate leads to higher regional population. This causes some people to remain at sites where weather is temporarily bad because sites with good weather are now more heavily occupied than before. Finally, there is a very-long-run channel where higher regional population leads to the use of previously latent resources and technological innovation. These mechanisms help to explain the rise of large sedentary communities in southwest Asia during the Epi-Paleolithic and in Japan during the early Holocene.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology→French-language works237,207→