MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409737949 · doi:10.1016/j.qeh.2025.100067

The great divide? Differences in environmental and hunter-gatherer responses to the 8.2 ka BP event between northwestern and northeastern Eurasia

2025· article· en· W4409737949 on OpenAlexafffund
Rick Schulting, Pavel E. Tarasov, Andrzej Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaternary Environments and Humans · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHunter-gathererEvent (particle physics)GeographyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this contribution we provide an overview of the potential impacts of the 8.2 ka BP cooling event on hunter-gatherer societies in northwestern Europe and northern/eastern Eurasia. There seems to be a division between the two parts of the continent, with Atlantic Europe generally seeing a stronger climatic and environmental impact compared to continental Eurasia. This plausibly relates to the greater effects on oceanic weather patterns, particularly those of the North Atlantic. The palaeoenvironmental record is more limited for the Pacific coast of northeast Asia, but the evidence to date does not suggest as strong an impact there. We then focus on a case study of the hunter-gatherers of Cis-Baikal in southern Siberia. While the archaeological record for the period pre-8200 cal BP is patchy, we find no clear evidence for any impact on the region’s hunter-gatherer communities. Major visible changes occur only with the appearance of the Kitoi culture from ca. 7600 cal BP, which sees the introduction of pottery, the bow and arrow, and large cemeteries. This appears to be an internal sociotechnological development unrelated to any abrupt changes in the regional climate and environment at this time.

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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaternary Environments and HumansSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207