MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404010124 · doi:10.35516/jjha.v18i3.1273

Lithic Procurement and Provisioning at the Lower Palaeolithic Site of Shishan Marsh 1 in the Azraq Basin, Jordan

2024· article· en· W4404010124 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeremy A. Beller, John K. Murray, Amer S. Alsouliman

Bibliographic record

VenueJordan Journal for History and Archaeology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaRoyal Society
KeywordsProvisioningMarshArchaeologyStructural basinGeologyProcurementGeographyPaleontologyEngineeringEcologyWetlandBiologyTelecommunicationsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considerations of the landscape, the distribution and quality of resources, distances to outcrops, and proximity to other resources factor into the procurement decision-making by prehistoric foragers. However, the patterns of resource exploitation and utilisation are likely to vary by region, and those exhibited in marginal environments are not fully explored. This report focuses on the nature of lithic procurement and provisioning at the Lower Palaeolithic site of Shishan Marsh 1 in the Azraq Basin, Jordan. It draws upon several lines of evidence, including provenance and use-wear analyses performed on the biface assemblage. The results indicate raw material exploitation occurred at local and non-local distances to the site and the lithics were used for a variety of activities on medium-hard materials. Foragers moved toward the wetlands from significant distances on the surrounding landscape, likely bringing finished tools and, after use, discarding them in relatively good condition. The accumulation over time of ready-to-use tools at Shishan Marsh 1 points to a provisioning of the wetland margins for future needs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJordan Journal for History and ArchaeologySame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207