Emergence of persistent institutionalized inequality at the Bridge River site, British Columbia: the roles of managerial mutualism and coercion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1200-1300 years ago. Research confirms that PII developed at a time of population packing associated with unstable fluctuations in a critical food resource (anadromous salmon) and persisted across multiple generations. While we understand the demographic and ecological conditions under which this history unfolded, we have yet to address details of the underlying social process. In this paper, we draw on Bridge River's Housepit 54 to examine two alternative hypotheses. Hypothesis 1, mutualism, suggests that household heads signalled to maintain and attract new members as a means of supporting the demographic viability of the house. Inequality is indicated by variation in prestige markers but less obviously in economic fundamentals. Hypothesis 2, coercion, asserts that the more successful households developed control over access to critical food resources, forcing others into the choice between emigration and subjugation. Inequality is indicated by inter-family differences in prestige markers and economic fundamentals. Results suggest that inequality emerged under a mutualism scenario but persisted for subsequent generations under more coercive conditions. This article is part of the theme issue 'Evolutionary ecology of inequality'.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".