MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416546085 · doi:10.1080/19442890.2025.2575250

How to Build a Drum-Shaped House: A Replicative Experiment in Ancestral Architecture (Cusco, Peru)

2025· article· en· W4416546085 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Julia E. Earle, Nancy Reyes Sevilla, Francisca Chihui Mendoza, Camilo Huaraca Marca, Nativo Verónica Tillca, Faustino Tillca Ccaita

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnoarchaeology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLatin American history and culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaRust Family FoundationSociety for American Archaeology
KeywordsArchitectureFeature (linguistics)Sequence (biology)Key (lock)Systems architecture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies of late prehispanic architecture in the Andes have generally focused on rectangular and circular structures associated with the Inka Empire. Meanwhile, the architecture of non-Inka populations spans a remarkable diversity of non-orthogonal structures, implicating varied roof designs and construction techniques. This study addresses a gap in knowledge on architectural traditions through collaboration with the community of Huama (Lamay District). Specifically, the replicative construction of a wankar wasi (drum-shaped house) presented herein draws on traditional knowledge developed in Huama over the course of many generations. We also applied Mobile Laser Scanning to visualize and analyze the resultant structure. These data facilitate analogy between contemporary practices and the archaeological record to understand the materials, knowledge, and relationships engaged by prehispanic builders, with the objective of reconstructing local cooperation and resilience of under state occupation. Moreover, this research celebrates local heritage while illuminating the technological choices implicated in construction, past and present.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnoarchaeologySame topicLatin American history and cultureFrench-language works237,207