The Organization of Production among Sedentary Foragers of the Southern Pacific Northwest Coast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of Canadian northwest coast complex foragers, and particularly those of the Greater Lower Columbia River region, assists general anthropology and anthropological archaeology in several ways: it identifies material correlates of one exampleof complex foragers, which may be useful in other analytical contexts, it assist in understanding the origins of inequality on the Northwest Coast and elsewhere by describing the precontact organization of labour, and it also assists in the understanding of how the unique sedentary foragers of the Lower Columbia region were economically organized in the early-contact period, partially as a test of the accuracy of historical reports. This report investigates the relationship between the organization of labour and usewear and artefact distributions from the floor areas of three aboriginal plank houses excavated in the Greater Lower Columbia River region. These houses date to the late precontact/early contact period, from ca. 1400 AD to 1830 AD. Lithic usewear analysis on tools excavated from these houses was used to identify the range and nature of extractive and maintenance activities carried out within the houses during occupation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".