Long-Term Perspectives on Sustainability, Resilience, and Change on the Island of Barbuda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The island of Barbuda in the Lesser Antilles has seen various waves of human occupation over the last 4,000 years. European colonization of the island began around 1628 and left a significant impact on Barbuda’s environment, though, unlike other islands, sugar cane was never grown on Barbuda. The Colonial Period thus represents a reorganization of the landscape through agricultural practices, the introduction of new animal and plant species, and land subdivision. After emancipation (1834), the people of Barbuda maintained sustainable fishing and farming practices and demonstrated resilience despite extreme climatic and weather events (hurricanes and droughts), and ongoing exploitative Colonial economic and political structures. Today, for the first time, Barbudans are at risk of losing their sustainable resilience, with irreversible cultural losses and devastating ecological restructuring. This chapter explores change in the pre-Columbian time period through the study of different cultural horizons combining archaeology, zooarchaeology, ethnobotany, archival documents, ethnography, and environmental science to explore the longue durée in a transdisciplinary perspective from the first peopling to the end of the prehistoric period with reference to the unprecedented effects of the Anthropocene.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".