Animal Uses at the Fur Trade Post Fort Carlton (FfNp-1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis presents the results of the zooarchaeological analysis of faunal remains and what was identified from the Hudson’s Bay Company journal records from Fort Carlton fur trade site (FfNp-1). This site is located in central Saskatchewan about 100 kilometers north of Saskatoon along the southern shore of the North Saskatchewan River. The goal of this research was to reconstruct dietary and subsistence practices of the fort’s inhabitants using a sample of over 10,000 animal remains and 172 journal entries. Faunal specimens were recovered from 20 units excavated in 2021-2022 by teams from the University of Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan Archaeological Society. Historical records represent 25 years of Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) journals. The results included 42 taxonomic categories identified from the faunal assemblage and 29 from the HBC journals. Combined, 47 different taxa were present in this sample which consisted of a number of mammals, birds, fish, and mollusks. Both datasets reflected that large artiodactyls were the most prominent animals at the post that were primarily used for meat, fat, and hides. Among them, bison was the main source of meat, and when they were unavailable, other artiodactyls such as moose or deer were hunted. Other mammals, such as wild carnivores, beaver, muskrat, and leporids were mostly used for traded pelts, but rabbit meat was also consumed. A few domesticated species were present at the fort. These are dogs, cattle, horse, and pigs, and all but pigs were serving as draft animals. Fish and birds, especially waterfowl, were a food source, and swan skins were also traded. According to HBC journal records, hare, waterfowl, and fish were often procured in periods of food shortage. Overall, the people of Fort Carlton used a variety of the locally available animal resources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".