MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W54689575 · doi:10.1017/s0002731600048691

Paleoindian Aggregation and Social Context at Bull Brook

2009· article· en· W54689575 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Robinson, Jennifer Ort, William A. Eldridge, Adrian L. Burke, Bertrand G. Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Antiquity · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtifact (error)ArchaeologyHuman settlementContext (archaeology)Hunter-gathererPlan (archaeology)Settlement (finance)GeographyScale (ratio)Historic siteHistorySocial organizationGenealogyCartographyAnthropologySociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large social aggregations are among the most highly organized events associated with mobile hunter-gatherers. The Bull Brook Paleoindian site in Ipswich, Massachusetts provides the strongest case for large-scale Paleoindian aggregation in North America, with 36 discrete concentrations of artifacts arranged in a large circle. Avocational archaeologists who salvaged the site in the 1950s interpreted it as a single occupation. Professionals first rejected and then revived this hypothesis, but the site remained insufficiently analyzed to evaluate. New research supports the single occupation hypothesis with a fully reconstructed site plan and the first complete analysis of artifact distributions. Clear spatial structure of activities within the ring-shaped site plan provides a window on social contexts that are also visible in smaller Paleoindian settlements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations95
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican AntiquitySame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207