ARCTIC Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives on an Athapaskan Moose Kill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT. A recent development in anthropology involves examination of living human populations in an attempt to better understand the “for-mation processes ” that create archaeological remains. An ethnologist and an archaeologist collaborated in the observation and analysis of procure-ment, butchering and distribution of moose among a group f contemporary Athapaskan (Chipewyan) Indians in northwestern Saskatchewan in 1977. Subtleties in the behavior of one particular hunting party illustrate the complexity and variability of skeletal and anatomical spatial distributions ac-companying various stages in processing, distributing and consuming a moose (Alres alces rmdersoni). Variables such as seasonality, proximity to a major settlement, transportation technology, sexual division of labor and ideational factors heavily influence the formation of archaeo-faunal remains within several components of a regional settlement system. Key words: ethnoarchaeology, Chipewyan Indians, moose hunting, decision making, site formation RÉSUMÉ. Une recherche anthropologique rkcente comporte I’ttude de populations vivantes en visant une meilleure comprthension des processus qui forment les restes archkologiques. Une ethnologue et un archkologue ont collabork dans l’observation et l’analyse des methodes d’obtention, de boucherie et de distribution d’orignal au sein du’une groupe contemporain d’indiens athapascans (Chipewyans) dans le nord-ouest de la Saskat-chewan. Les subtilitts dans le comportement d’un groupe particulier de chasseurs demontrent la complexitt et la variabilitt des distributions patiales anatomiques et squelettiques suivant les diverses dtapes du dkpeçage, de la distribution et de la consommation d’un orignal (Alres alces undmoni). Des variables telles que le caractere saisonnier, la proximitt B un site majeur d’habitation, la technologic du transport et I’ingeniositk influencent de façon importante la formation de restes archkologiques animaux dans de nombreuses composantes d’une habitation regionale. Mots cl&: ethnoarch6ologie. indiens Chipewyans, chasse B l’orignal, processus de dtcision, formation de sites Traduit pour le journal par Maurice Guibord.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".