MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391881032 · doi:10.1002/arco.5313

First Nations pre‐LGM ochre processing in Parramatta, NSW, Australia

2024· article· en· W4391881032 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tim Owen, Simon Munt, Sam Player, Phillip Toms, Jamie Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeology in Oceania/Archæology & physical anthropology in Oceania · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFlinders University
KeywordsArchaeologyGeographyAncient historyOceanographyGeologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Previous archaeological evidence and published analysis has suggested that ochre was first used in the Sydney Basin around 9000 years ago, and that the Parramatta region may not have been occupied by First Nations peoples before ∼14 ka. We present new evidence which firmly places both events before the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Multiple ochre fragments, two with microscopically visible evidence of anthropogenic grinding, were recovered from the George Street Gatehouse site within the Parramatta Sand Body (PSB) at Parramatta. The ground ochre was associated with a pit feature buried within the PSB and dated by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) between ∼35 and 30 ka. This find is the earliest evidence for ochre processing in the Sydney Basin by some 25000 years. A previous model for the region had proposed that occupation prior to and during the LGM was focussed on the Hawkesbury‐Nepean River corridor as a refugium, with only equivocal evidence of occupation prior to ∼14 ka at Parramatta (Williams et al., 2021). We propose that the Parramatta River could also have acted as a refugium for people moving through and occupying the now‐drowned Pleistocene coastal zone; and that those people used ochre in their symbolic expressions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeology in Oceania/Archæology & physical anthropology in OceaniaSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207