The Plank Canoe of Southern California: Not a Polynesian Import, but a Local Innovation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I attribute linguistic arguments to 'Klar and Jones' and archaeological ones to 'Jones and Klar'.Summaries of their arguments are also published in Jones ( 2010), Klar (2010), throughout Jones et al. (2011), and in Jones and Klar (2012).4 Jones and Klar's papers concentrate on contact between Polynesia and Southern California, but they also suggest contacts between Polynesia and the southern Chilean coast (A:461; D:93-94; E:179-180; Klar 2010; Klar 2011; Jones and Klar 2012).That topic is discussed more marginally; the linguistic part of it is brought up in paper D, but not in its revised version E. I will therefore not go into it in detail here.The linguistic argument suffers from similar weaknesses to the ones discussed here.5 The single liquid consonant phoneme of Proto East Polynesian is sometimes marked as , with an undetermined phonetic value reconstructed as either [r] or [l].In the attested East Polynesian languages, [l] occurs only in Hawaiian, and early records show that [r] existed in Hawaiian as an allophone or a dialectal variant of that phoneme.I therefore reconstruct the PEP phoneme as [r]; this makes for clearer reading as well.Which liquid is reconstructed is not significant for this study, as has been noted by Klar and Jones (B:386), since all Chumashan languages have only one liquid, /l/, and either a Polynesian /r/ or an /l/ would be borrowed into a Chumashan language as /l/.The same argument applies to Gabrielino, which only has one liquid, /r/.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".