Isimila Prehistoric Site, Tanzania: Comparative Faunal Datings and ESR, with a Reassessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than sixty years ago, 1957-58 University of Chicago excavations at the Isimila Prehistoric Site in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania exposed a sequence of Pleistocene deposits that included Earlier Stone Age aggregates. Now, the available correlations with extinct fauna from other dated East African localities and preliminary electron spin resonance (ESR) estimates indicate that the Isimila Formation was deposited over a much longer time range than originally proposed. As originally noted, Earlier Stone Age ‘large cutting tools' or LCT's found in the upper Lisalamagasi Member are more refined than are those found in the Sands units of the lower Lukingi Member. This suggests a correlation with Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site for the upper member, with new OSL dating at ca. 400–500 ka. The new faunal correlations and ESR estimates indicate that the lower member was deposited between 500 and 900 ka, during the later Early Pleistocene to the early Middle Pleistocene. A reassessment of Isimila including unpublished excavation data raises questions about the Pleistocene human occupations and their palaeoenvironments on the Highlands Plateau.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".