Archaeological material analysis of FjCa-51, area 11 \nSheshatshiu, Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excavation at archaeological site FjCa-51 in Sheshatshiu, NL has been ongoing \nsince 2009, at the request of the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation. FjCa-51 is reported to be \none of the most significant Intermediate period (3500-1800 BP) archaeological sites in \nLabrador with fifteen different loci excavated to date. As most of the cultural material of \nthe Intermediate period is lithics, an analysis following a chaîne opératoire approach was \ncompleted in order to understand site use, movement and/or trade across the land, and \nhow Area 11 fits into the existing Intermediate period classifications. Residue analysis \nwas completed on five anvil stones in order to discern whether the analysis would provide \nresults regarding the processing of organic materials on site. The results suggest that Area \n11 was a short-term habitation site that saw only a single occupation that had both local \nand non-local stone raw materials suggestive of movement or trade. The artifacts are also \na mixture of diagnostically Charles and Brinex complexes, now considered the Saunders \nphase, so Area 11 has been placed into this phase. Results were obtained from the residue \nanalysis providing evidence for cold season grasses and possible bison processing on site. \nAll of the above analyses are discussed together in order to fully understand how Area 11 \nof FjCa-51 was utilized.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".