The Other Large Bifaces: Late Mississippian Woodworking Tools from Southwestern Indiana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mississippian cultures left behind two types of large utilitarian bifaces: hoes and so-called woodworking tools. The former have attracted considerable scholarly attention, while the latter have not. We attempt to address this bias by focusing on a substantial number of woodworking tools from three sites in southwestern Indiana. All belong to Caborn-Welborn, a late Mississippian culture that developed at the Ohio-Wabash confluence after the decline of the Angel polity and the establishment of the “Vacant Quarter” across a large portion of the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys. In this article, we examine these specimens’ technomorphological characteristics and use-wear traces, as well as the sources of the cherts from which they were made. In addition, our study has two comparative components: First, we investigate similarities and differences between the Caborn-Welborn woodworking tools and those from both the Angel culture and other parts of the Mississippian world; second, we explore the woodworking tools in relation to hoes from both Caborn-Welborn and Angel phase sites.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".