MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388083213 · doi:10.1080/00934690.2023.2272098

Ice Patches and Obsidian Quarries: Integrating Research Through Collaborative Archaeology in Tahltan Territory

2023· article· en· W4388083213 on OpenAlexafffund
Duncan McLaren, Brendan Gray, Ts̱ēmā Igharas, Rolf W. Mathewes, Genevieve Hill, Kendrick L. Marr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Field Archaeology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsRoyal British Columbia MuseumTula FoundationSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Victoria
FundersHakai Institute
KeywordsArchaeologyArtifact (error)Radiocarbon datingPlateau (mathematics)GeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents the results of archaeological survey of ice patches in the vicinity of the vast obsidian quarries and artifact scatters found near Goat Mountain and the Kitsu Plateau in Mount Edziza Provincial Park, Tahltan Territory. During the survey, over 50 perishable artifacts were found, including stitched birch bark containers, wooden walking staffs, carved and beveled sticks, an atlatl dart foreshaft, and a stitched hide boot. Radiocarbon ages on 13 of the perishable artifacts reveal that they span the last 7000 years. These finds were made against a massive and stunning backdrop of scattered obsidian artifacts: bifaces, cores, flakes, and raw material nodules. This project collaborated with the Obsidian Discoveries Tahltan Tene Mehodihi Youth Group Hike and the “Our Ancestors’ Trail” museum exhibition. This collaboration resulted in connections between the archaeological results presented here, community learning, and artistic inspiration.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Field ArchaeologySame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207