MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394003124

Industries lithiques à composante lamellaire par pression du Nord Pacifique de la fin du Pléistocène au début de l’Holocène : de la diffusion d’une technique en Extrême-Orient au peuplement initial du Nouveau Monde

2011· preprint· en· W4394003124 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yan Axel Gómez Coutouly

Bibliographic record

Venuetheses.fr (ABES) · 2011
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolocenePleistoceneArchaeologyGeologyGeographyPaleontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Débitage of pressure microblades appeared in the archaeological record about 20,000 years ago in Northeast Asia, followed by their diffusion toward Central Asia as well as toward Siberia, Alaska, and British Columbia. This research analyzes the spread of these microblade industries from the Asian Far East to North America, utilizing many archaeological collections from Primorye, Siberia, and northwest North America as the basis of a meticulous typo-technological study. The easy recognition of microblade-bearing sites allows studying the evolution, on a wide geographical and chronological scale, of the technoeconomic system during the initial peopling of the New World, while retaining technologically comparable backgrounds. The singularity of this work lies not only in the chosen subject but also in the chosen methodology, i.e., the application of lithic technology as developed by the French school to the study of Palaeolithic industries with microblade components, as well as to some issues concerning the first peopling of the New World. Many questions will be discussed, including: What is the geographical and chronological origin of the first pressure microblade industries? Can we highlight some factors that stimulated such an invention? How were microblades used? What elements can explain the variability of the débitage-producing methods? Is the progression of microblade industries the result of a technological diffusion or a human migration? Can any preferential migratory routes be identified? Is the associated toolkit highly variable or is it relatively constant? How does the analysis of lithic technology allow the assessment of interactions between groups? The new approach developed here addresses the issues from a different angle and leads to new visions, proposals, and results that are noticeably different from those that have been suggested to date.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuetheses.fr (ABES)Same topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207