MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388918676 · doi:10.1515/opar-2022-0326

The Thule Migration: A Culture in a Hurry?

2023· article· en· W4388918676 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert W. Park

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Archaeology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceContext (archaeology)Radiocarbon datingHistoryArcticGeographyThe arcticArchaeologyEthnologyEcologyOceanographyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The process by which the Thule Inuit migrated from the region around Bering Strait into Arctic Canada and Greenland, which is notable for its logistical complexities, the varied and difficult regions traversed and then populated, and for the enormous distance covered, is almost invariably described in terms emphasizing the pace at which it took place. The most common description is “rapid,” and some descriptions conclude it may have been accomplished within just a few decades, despite researchers not having explored the logistical and demographic implications of that inference. This article explores several possible meanings of “rapid” in the context of the Thule migration and reviews the evidence that is informative concerning its pace, including radiocarbon dates, historical encounters, logistics, and demography. It concludes that the Thule Inuit may indeed have felt a sense of urgency to expand into new regions, but they did this at a far slower pace than most researchers have concluded, over centuries rather than decades.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.016
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen ArchaeologySame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207