Analysis of Artifacts from Four Duke Point Area Sites, Near Nanaimo, B.C.: An Example of Cultural Continuity in the Southern Gulf of Georgia Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archaeological salvage excavations conducted in 1978 at four sites in the Duke Point area, DgRx 5, 11, 29, and 36, yielded a large volume of cultural material. Complete artifact analysis, supplemented with partial soils, fauna!, burial, and pollen analyses, and a range of radiocarbon dates, from about 2760 B.C., have suggested the interpretation of three cultural components. Component differences are to be found in the relative frequencies and percentages of artifacts in some classes as opposed to the presence or absence of certain artifact classes themselves. Using artifact data from the Duke Point area sites together with comparable data from other sites in the southern Gulf of Georgia region, it is demonstrated that perceived differences in artifact assemblages, particularly on a presence/absence basis, are not as clear-cut as they were once considered to be. Rather, the significant differences lie in the relative frequencies and percentages of certain artifact types. The utility of the current three-part framework for archaeological analysis, which has encouraged the interpretation of migration, diffusion, and independent invention to explain the origins and temporal variation of culture in the southern Gulf of Georgia region, is critically examined. It is argued that what are now regarded as relatively minor cultural changes, given the seasonal dynamics of the coastal environment, suggest cultural continuity. Conversely, where discontinuity is not readily apparent, and where proportional changes in artifacts between components rather than actual artifact class differences are in evidence, cultural continuity should be considered as a possible alternative.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".