Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a comprehensive overview of evidence for fishing in the Thule period of the eastern North American Arctic, Whitridge (2001) noted that fish bones are either extremely rare or absent in archaeofaunal samples, despite the fact that artifact assemblages typically contain a variety of fishing implements. In this paper, we present new faunal data from two sites on southeastern Victoria Island, Nunavut, which offer a marked contrast to this pattern. The Pembroke site, located just north of Cambridge Bay, is a small Thule site probably occupied during an early migration into the region. The Bell site, located on the Ekalluk River, is a more substantial site, occupied for a much longer duration during the Thule period. These sites are located in areas devoid of many taxa preferred by Thule peoples, which led the sites ’ occupants to rely on caribou and fish for much of their winter subsistence. At the Bell site, storage of caribou and fish was critical for winter survival. However, the occupants of the Pembroke site appear to have been unable to acquire sufficient stores during the fall, and therefore relied on fishing through the ice during winter to supplement their inadequate stores. Although both sites indicate a more important economic role for fish than has been recorded on any other eastern Arctic Thule winter site, the use of fish at the two sites differs markedly, adding nuance to archaeologically known Thule subsistence patterns.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.032 |
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".