A detailed analysis of ringed seal remains (Phoca hispida) from three seasonally different Thule sites at Hazard Inlet, Somerset Island (Nunavut) /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis presents an exploratory approach using detailed zooarchaeological analysis to evaluate the nature of ringed seal ( Phoca hispida) remains from three seasonally different Thule sites in the Hazard Inlet area of Somerset Island, Nunavut. Most Thule research focuses on winter occupation and presents Thule as a whaling society. Little attention has been given on the nature of sealing during Thule occupation and research on seasonal differences of seal remains from Thule sites remains scarce. This thesis is thus one of the first to focus on ringed seal remains from seasonally different Thule sites through an analysis of over 30,000 bone specimens. The goal of this thesis is to determine if the seal assemblages are a product of differential butchering and transport, taphonomic processes, or if external factors are also playing a role in shaping the faunal record. The analysis considers variability within each site as well as between the sites. Overall, a moderate to strong correlation was found between bone density and the seal bone elements identified while a negative correlation existed with the elements and FUI (food utility indices). This led to the conclusion that taphonomy was the leading agent shaping the seal remains at Hazard Inlet. However, enough variation existed within each site to consider the role of outside factors, such as the presence of dogs, food preferences, food storage and season of occupation in shaping the seal remains at Hazard Inlet.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".