MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162035161 · doi:10.82308/39763

From chipped to ground: the spatio-temporal systematics of 9,000 years of archaeological change in southwest British Columbia

2009· dissertation· en· W7162035161 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher Ames

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransition timeSystematicsLithic technologyPeriod (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au cours des 9000 dernières années de la préhistoire sur la côte sud-ouest de la Colombie-Britannique il y a eu une transition technologique des assemblages composés principalement d'outils de pierre taillée vers des assemblages composés de pierre polie, d'os et d'andouiller. Les explications courantes de cette transition se fondent sur relativement peu d'assemblages et un concept de phases chronologiques profondément enraciné. Dans cette étude, je combine les données produite par les firmes archéologiques, connus sous le nom de littérature « grise », avec des sources académiques et des rapports provinciaux archivés, pour évaluer la nature de la transition et déterminer si le concept de phase influence l'interprétation du changement archéologique. Les conceptions actuelles d'une transition uniforme et progressive d'assemblages dominés par la pierre taillée vers les assemblages dominés par la pierre polie sont inexactes. Elles accentuent les contraintes interprétatives sur l'analyse du changement archéologique et elles démontrent la nécessité de conceptualiser l'espace et la chronologie comme variables continues plutôt que comme unités.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology→French-language works237,207→