MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Culture on the Rock(s)

2024· book-chapter· en· W4403195046 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher B. Wolff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Press of Florida eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a long history of abandonment of the island of Newfoundland by its Indigenous peoples. The Maritime Archaic were the first to colonize Newfoundland, situated in North America Subarctic islands, around 6,500 years ago and the first to abandon it around 3,000 years later; however, their reason for leaving remains largely unknown. Because it took place when there were no other cultural competitors on the island, it presumably was significantly influenced by environmental changes during that period. The surrounding marine environment was changing due to decreasing ocean temperatures and increasing distribution and duration of sea ice, and the island’s interior has never been economically viable over the long term. Newfoundland Archaic groups persisted for millennia but ultimately were unable to sustain their way of life on the island and abandoned it for the mainland where there were more economic opportunities away from the coast. This research relies on environmental proxy data from regional sea cores, biogeography of marine and terrestrial resources, and archaeological data from Maritime Archaic sites to better understand and provide a historical ecology for the context and processes associated with their resilience and their eventual abandonment of the island. This chapter will also discuss how knowledge of these processes impacts our interpretations of subsequent abandonments of the island, the challenge of sustainability by its peoples, and their relationship with environmental change.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity Press of Florida eBooksSame topicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207