MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402556807 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310520

Design and development of a sensorized hammerstone for accurate force measurement in stone knapping experiments

2024· article· en· W4402556807 on OpenAlexaff
C. Barroso-Medina, Sam Lin, Matthew W. Tocheri, Manish Sreenivasa

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersAustralian Research CouncilUniversity of Wollongong
KeywordsKnappingHammerStone toolComputer scienceGeologyMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of making stone tools, specifically knapping, is a hominin behaviour that typically involves using the upper limb to manipulate a stone hammer and apply concentrated percussive force to another stone, causing fracture and detachment of stone chips with sharp edges. To understand the emergence and subsequent evolution of tool-related behaviours in hominins, the connections between the mechanics of stone knapping, including the delivery of percussive forces, and biomechanics and hominin anatomy, especially in the upper limb, are required. However, there is an absence of direct experimental means to measure the actual forces generated and applied to produce flakes during knapping. Our study introduces a novel solution to this problem in the form of an ergonomic hand-held synthetic hammerstone that can record the percussive forces that occur during knapping experiments. This hammerstone is composed of a deformable pneumatic 3D-printed chamber encased within a 3D-printed grip and a stone-milled striker. During knapping, hammer impact causes the pneumatic chamber to deform, which leads to a change in pressure that is measured by a sensor. Comparisons of recorded pressure data against corresponding force values measured using a force plate show that the synthetic hammer quantifies percussion forces with relatively high accuracy. The performance of this hammerstone was further validated by conducting anvil-supported knapping experiments on glass that resulted in a root mean square error of under 6%, while recording forces up to 730 N with successful flake detachments. These validation results indicate that accuracy was not sensitive to variations up to 15° from the vertical in the hammer striking angle. Our approach allows future studies to directly examine the role of percussive force during the stone knapping process and its relationship with both anatomical and technological changes during human evolution.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.100 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology→French-language works237,207→