Bringing in the Children: The Impact of Social Archaeology on Archaeological Studies of Childhood in Southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I present a historical overview to evaluate methodological and theoretical contexts that have impacted the study of Indigenous childhood in archaeology in the Great Lakes region. Until recently, the study of childhood practice has been largely overlooked, and our understanding of childhood has been limited to bioarchaeological studies of ancestral remains to address questions of health, diet, and disease, with less focus on childhood practices. Rather than a paucity of empirical data, I suggest that it is a theoretical emphasis on cultural history and its legacy that has resulted in restrictive models. Recently, emerging scholars have contributed significantly to the development of methodological and theoretical frameworks and have begun asking broader questions about identity and knowledge production. In this paper, I highlight the impact social archaeology has had on the archaeological research of Indigenous childhood in the Great Lakes region. I follow by identifying trends and future directions of childhood studies that are currently being pursued in the Great Lakes region. Growing our understanding of childhood in the past not only fleshes out past actors in archaeological narratives but also enhances understanding of broader social and economic practices in the region and provides frameworks to contribute to the broader theoretical arguments taking place in the anthropology of childhood.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".