MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403732742 · doi:10.1080/20555563.2024.2407212

Bayesian Analysis of Haskett Projectile Point Radiocarbon Dates in the Intermountain West Demonstrates Contemporaneity with Clovis and Folsom Points

2024· article· en· W4403732742 on OpenAlexaff
Richard L. Rosencrance, Katelyn N. McDonough, Geoffrey M. Smith, Christopher S. Jazwa, Daron Duke, Dennis L. Jenkins, Daniel Stueber, L. Suzann Henrikson

Bibliographic record

VenuePaleoAmerica · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersIdaho National LaboratoryUniversity of Nevada, RenoDesert Research Institute
KeywordsProjectile pointRadiocarbon datingArchaeologyGeologyProjectilePoint (geometry)GeographyGeometryPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluate existing radiocarbon dates at sites containing Haskett stemmed projectile points, present 12 new dates from 5 components at 4 sites, and model the age of Haskett points in a multiphase Bayesian framework with trapezium boundaries. We present multiple models with variable prior information to explore the impacts of different interpretations of the archaeological record, and ultimately favor a model where Haskett points appeared between 13,260 and 12,895 calendar years ago and fell out of use between 11,785 and 11,390 calendar years ago, a period of between 1115 and 1555 years. When compared to Bayesian analyses of Clovis and Folsom points, our preferred model suggests Haskett emerged at a similar time as Clovis and lasted longer than both fluted point complexes. Our results also indicate Haskett preceded other unshouldered stemmed point complexes in North America, providing further support for an ancestral-descendant relationship like that proposed for Clovis and Folsom.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaleoAmericaSame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207