Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contact, Circulation, Exchange collects ten articles focusing on worked hard materials of animal origin (shell, tusk, bone, antler) ranging chronologically from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Middle Ages. The authors have varied academic backgrounds that enhance the archaeological analyses carried out, often at first hand, on numerous collections from the Old and New Worlds. Evidence of contact between past populations with distinct technical traditions is found in the dynamic imposed by using certain craft methods, such as stone pressure flaking (7,000 BC). Another kind of stimulus may have given rise to a tool with a specific use in the migration period, the sumak (300 BC-600 AD). Apart from the attraction of a novel technique or a new piece of equipment, it was the attraction of the raw material and the hunting sites that formed the guiding principle behind the mobility of groups within a territory, in early (35,000-12,000 BC) as in recent prehistory (up to 1500 AD). Weaponry, adornments and/or the animal species used are then powerful markers of the extent of trade routes and networks, and even of craftsmanship when related to village settlements (4,500-2,500 BC). In antiquity, the exotic rather than exogenous origin of materials was used to develop unique skills in the service of cults. In the diffusion of figurines, representation took precedence over the unique or sought-after nature of the material, whose origin remained nonetheless animal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.321 | 0.110 |
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".