Institutions and Regional Integration on the Maritime Peninsula: Why Natural History Societies Still Matter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Maritime Peninsula, the eastern homeland of the Wabanaki, forms a defensible archaeological region, but one divided by an international border. Research from either side of the border remains poorly integrated. In this paper, I consider the history of the institutional-scale research in the region—that is, the organizations supporting, publishing, and regulating archaeological research. Archaeology in the State of Maine developed an outward orientation early on, with research largely sponsored by out-of-state institutions. In contrast, work in the Maritime provinces (Maritimes) was dominated by local natural history societies. A relative dearth of research on both sides of the border for much of the twentieth century served to secure these trends before they were calcified legislatively at the provincial level in the Maritimes and in connection with federal legislation in Maine. As a result, archaeology in the Maritimes is marked in large part by a focus on objects and inventories of objects, a generalist approach that blurs historical and precontact archaeology, and an iterative approach to defining archaeological significance. In contrast, work in Maine tends to emphasize survey and the definition of sites and is more clearly problem oriented with conservative criteria for historical significance. As a result, attempts at regional integration may need to be aimed at some of these scales.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".