A MULTIVARIATE TAPHONOMIC APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING MIDDEN FORMATION IN THULE INUIT CONTEXTS: A CASE STUDY FROM ARCTIC CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archaeologists attempting to reconstruct local and regional Thule subsistence behaviour place great emphasis on faunal assemblages recovered from Thule semisubterranean house structures and their associated middens (refuse dumps). Despite the importance of this dataset, limited attention has been given to understanding the taphonomic processes that created these assemblages. The faunal material observed in middens can be highly variable due to the impact of natural and cultural formation processes. This thesis uses faunal data collected from a Thule site (NeHd-1, ca. AD 1400-1600) located near Hall Beach, Nunavut to examine the formation and preservation of three different middens. Application of a multivariate taphonomic approach indicates that formation processes played an important role in determining the nature of these samples, affecting each deposit differently. A better understanding of this variability provides the basis for more informed inferences regarding human behaviour at both the intra- and inter-site level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".