MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393952142 · doi:10.1002/arco.5314

Pig and dog use in the pre‐contact Society Island Chiefdoms: integrated ethnohistoric, archaeological and use‐web analyses

2024· article· en· W4393952142 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jennifer G. Kahn

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeology in Oceania/Archæology & physical anthropology in Oceania · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPacific and Southeast Asian Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHakai Institute
KeywordsChiefdomAnimal husbandryArchaeologyGeographyEthnologyEliteHistoryPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Pig and dog were highly valued animals in pre‐contact Polynesia. In this paper, I focus on pig and dog use in the resource rich, and hierarchically complex, pre‐contact Society Island chiefdoms. Utilizing ethnohistoric data and human‐centred use‐webs data, I provide a preliminary study of the diverse ways that pigs and dogs were used in pre‐contact Mā‘ohi life across 13 use categories. Ethnohistoric analyses indicate that pigs, and to some extent dogs, were intimately associated with elite ceremonial use, yet pigs were commonly associated with war and fertility rituals, while dogs were commonly associated with peacekeeping events. Preliminary comparison of pig and dog frequencies at eight excavated archaeological sites suggests pig bones far outnumber dog bones. There is also differential recovery of pig and dog bone in terms of site function and site status, with high status temples dating to the Centralization Phase having the highest incidence of both species. It is highly likely that the advent of the ‘Oro war cult led to intensified pig husbandry, given this animal's robust associations with ritual use, moral notions of chiefly power and cosmology. Why dog husbandry was less intensified in the Society Islands, and why this animal was perhaps accessed largely through long‐distance trade relationships, is an ongoing question.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.027
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 topicPacific and Southeast Asian StudiesFrench-language works237,207