MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925440553 · doi:10.17613/yfwzm-6t220

Locating Creative Agency in Archaeological Data Work

2025· article· en· W6925440553 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Resource Management and Quality
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)WorkflowOperationalizationWork (physics)Control (management)Reflection (computer programming)Data managementCreativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The workflows that are now commonplace across archaeological projects mask social and epistemic structures and principles. More specifically, they re-distribute creative agency to promote specific kinds of outcomes based on discrete data models. This paper draws attention to the mechanisms through which data are created and curated, focusing on the social and technical apparatus through which archaeologists control the creation and flow of information. Based on observations of and elicitations about archaeological data work in fieldwork settings at two cases, I articulate how the management of data and of labour are inherently intertwined, and how workflows are operationalized by managerial systems to ensure that data are created and curated toward productive ends. This paper therefore contributes to ongoing theory-building and prompts further reflection on the roles of information objects, infrastructures and professional relationships that mediate the valuation, validation and legitimization of archaeological knowledge.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.004
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.214 · 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