8 Households, Growth, Contraction, and Mobility at the Classic Maya Center of Naachtun
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After decades of debate, most scholars accept Classic Maya centers as the hearts of spatially expansive, low-density urban settlements.The recent incorporation of models derived from comparative urban research is a positive step for Maya archaeology, since it confronts the view that Maya cities were not only political capitals but also true urban phenomena, and must be treated as such.This volume seeks to explore the dynamics of Maya cities primarily as socioeconomic agglomerations that emerged out of politico-religious centers.Although a worn-out paradox, the now largely acknowledged existence of numerous Preclassic (400 BCE-150 CE) and Classic (150-950 CE) cities and towns of remarkable size was not expected in the forested tropical lowlands, an environment considered by several generations of scholars to be unfit for supporting large population concentrations.Nor can one deny that most Classic cities in the southern and northern lowlands were indeed abandoned in perhaps less than one hundred years during the ninth and tenth centuries CE.This "extraordinary" occurrence of Classic urbanization deserves wide-ranging, yet tightly focused research efforts to elucidate this paradox and its seemingly logical Copyrighted material, not for distribution
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".