Formation processes of archaeobotanical assemblages of an early Thule Iñupiaq dwelling at Cape Espenberg, northwest Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archaeobotany remains an underdeveloped discipline in the Arctic, with comparatively little known about the processes involved in the formation of plant assemblages in ancestral Inuit sites. Archaeobotanical records from seasonal forager sites at high latitudes present several peculiarities: 1) excellent preservation; 2) lack of domesticated species prior to contact with Europeans; 3) few, if any, carbonized remains; 4) taxa from the immediate environment. Under these conditions, it can be difficult to differentiate between macrobotanicals resulting from human activities and those introduced naturally during or after site occupation. In this article, we present the results of archaeobotanical analysis of an early Thule Iñupiaq winter dwelling dated to the late 13th – early 14th centuries at Cape Espenberg (KTZ-304), northwestern Alaska. In order to define plant-related practices among past Iñupiat people, we are attempting to determine how the archaeobotanical assemblage is formed, and delineate the macrobotanical remains associated with human activities. Comparison of roof and cultural layer samples with fill and off-site samples, as well as the results of five 14 C dates on seeds, provide a clear archaeobotanical signature of the cultural levels and demonstrate that the plant assemblage associated with the occupation layers derives from human activities directly and indirectly linked to plant use.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".