MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385516658 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285021

Assessing population dynamics in the Central Salish Sea, Pacific Northwest Coast of North America

2023· article· en· W4385516658 on OpenAlexaff
Adam N. Rorabaugh

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiocarbon datingPopulationGeographyArchaeologyOceanographyPhysical geographyGeologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent developments in radiocarbon dating have enabled archaeologists to re-examine the question of population dynamism in the Salish Sea. This study expands on Taylor and colleagues (2011) using Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) and an expanded data set of 538 radiocarbon dates from academic and cultural resource management literature. The expanded sample suggests a pattern of population growth from 3200-2800 cal BP in coastal Northwestern Washington, with population growth in the San Juan islands during 2600-2200 cal BP. A subsequent decrease in radiocarbon frequencies and large sites suggests shifts in use of the San Juan Islands, followed by peak large-scale occupation from 650-300 cal BP. This pattern is robust whether marine or terrestrial dates are considered. However, marine dates are less sensitive to questions at smaller temporal scales. The broad scale radiocarbon frequency patterns observed are also consistent with those observed in southwest coastal British Columbia (Ritchie et al., 2016; Morin et al., 2018).

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207