Living Archaeological Sites: Documenting and Uplifting 2,700 Years of Cultural-Ecological Heritage in Sts’ailes Territory, SW British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study advocates for shifting archaeological praxes to ones that include ecological heritage—biotic features of a landscape that hold cultural, educational, and historical significance. Historically, archaeologists have tended to overlook ecological heritage, such as “living sites,” emphasizing built heritage and manufactured tools and features over ecosystems shaped and stewarded by people. We bring together archaeological, ecological, and archival data, combined with the memories of Sts’ailes Elders and knowledge holders, to document the long-term history of one anthropogenic landscape in Sts’ailes territory of southwestern British Columbia. Our data show that people shaped and enhanced local vegetation processes over time, resulting in forest garden ecosystems that continue to grow both within and outside of other archaeological evidence of past lives lived. By tracing the historical ecology of a single locale over three millennia, we consider the extent to which ecological heritage such as forest gardens can be documented, analyzed, reimagined, and revitalized in community contexts as continuously living and used sites.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".