Characterizing the Erosion of Coastal Archaeological Sites on the Maritime Peninsula Using Survey, Collection Analysis, Excavation, and Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The erosion of coastal archaeological sites is a worldwide heritage crisis. However, regional variability in the archaeological record and the natural environment necessitates localized consideration of the erosion of archaeological sites to facilitate informed research prioritization decisions about coastal cultural resources. In this article, we present and compare the results of recent coastal survey programs from southern Nova Scotia and far northeastern Maine to earlier ones to ascertain the extent of erosion since the mid-twentieth century. We then situate regional erosion in culture-historical terms via a case study from archaeological sites at Sipp Bay, Maine, from which materials were collected and tested in the early to mid-twentieth century. We compare the results of that work to our recent excavations. Finally, we model future sea-level rise scenarios to estimate future site destruction and compare these models between regions. Together, these data illustrate patterns in site preservation for geoarchaeological examination, provide insight into erosion-driven biases in the extant archaeological record, and offer information to guide research prioritization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".