MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7103347234

Book Review of <i>Imagining Head-Smashed-In: Aboriginal Buffalo Hunting on the Northern Plains</i> By Jack W. Brink

2009· article· W7103347234 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2009
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian Indigenous Culture and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionTributeFace (sociological concept)CliffTable (database)Simple (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jack Brink has written an important and engaging book, his personal tribute to the Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump in southern Alberta, Canada. This is an easy-going, almost conversational narrative, but it’s easy to detect the author’s passion and the solid science that lies behind his simple words.\nImagining Head-Smashed-In boasts a remarkably broad and well-crafted table of contents. Brink begins with an overview of Head-Smashed-In, patiently explaining to professional and lay reader alike why this particular archaeological site should command our attention. As an admitted zealot, he doesn’t shy away from occasional hyperbole: “If hunters of the Plains were engaged in the most rewarding procurement of food ever devised by human being, maybe life wasn’t so bad after all.” In Brink’s view, this cliff face and “simple lines of rocks” ranks right up there with, say, Stonehenge and the Great Wall of China; this is, after all, one of fewer than 900 places designated by UNESCO as a “World Heritage Site.” The stage then shifts to the main character, the American buffalo (or, as Brink points out, more properly called the North American bison). Two chapters chronicle the biology, life history, and especially seasonal behavior of “the great beast of the Plains.”

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsecta mundiSame topicAustralian Indigenous Culture and HistoryFrench-language works237,207