Exploring Technological Style and Use in the Ontario Early Late Woodland: The Van Besien Site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores social identity and group membership at the Van Besien site by identifying the social patterning in the production and consumption of ceramics. Since potting is a social event involving transmission of knowledge, production exists within social constraints specific to each potter and influences the technological choices he/she makes. Such technological choices culminate in what is regarded as technological style, created by the repetition of activities or choices that create discernible patterns to allow for identification of styles that demarcate social boundaries. By identifying stylistic traditions of production and use of ceramics at Van Besien, I found evidence for both fluidity and rigidity of social boundaries. There are constant technological choices that traditionally would be viewed as evidence of rigid social membership. In contrast, the presence of variability at the Van Besien site indicates that social groups were not rigid. To identify if social membership was spatially represented, variability was explored throughout the site. I found that there were unexpected social divisions visible spatially in the pottery. The results demonstrate that with new theoretical frameworks, new interpretations regarding village social spheres can be discerned. My thesis represents a successful re-evaluation of an extant collection with missing and deficient documentation. This case study shows that extant collections can be revisited, reevaluated, and shed new light on academic debates in Ontario archaeology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".