CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64Archaeological Research and ProtectionIndigenous Cultures and HistoryHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 112 of the 120 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 11 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Modeling Métis mobility? Evaluating least cost paths and indigenous landscapes in the Canadian west

Supernant, Kisha·2017·Journal of Archaeological Science
DOI 10.1016/j.jas.2017.05.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analyses in archaeology have been criticized by archaeologists for being reductive, environmentally deterministic, and reproducing a disembodied experience of the landscape. However, research over the past 20 years has demonstrated the power of GIS data and analyses to explore complex social questions about past human experiences. Indigenous knowledges of landscapes have not often explicitly informed GIS analyses in archaeology, even though archaeologists and indigenous communities around the world are forging collaborative relationships. This paper proposes an integrated approach GIS-based least cost analysis, where Indigenous traditional knowledge, historical documentation, and archaeology can be brought together for a more nuanced and locally-grounded model of past landscapes. A case study from the movement of the Métis people of Canada is used to test typical models of cost path movement used in archaeology against known historic trails information, followed by a discussion of possible future applications of movement models and variables related to local Indigenous knowledge of current and past landscapes.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper tests standard slope-based and slope-plus-water least cost path models against known 19th-century Métis trails in the North Saskatchewan drainage and finds that neither model closely reproduces the trails in most cases. It argues that archaeological LCP models need to be grounded in local Indigenous knowledge rather than generalized environmental variables.

Key findings

  • Neither the slope-only nor the slope-plus-water LCP model approximated the trails data in most cases; trails tended to be shorter and more direct, while the water-as-barrier model produced long, circuitous detours, such as the large eastern and southern detour around waterways to Fort Carlton.
  • Water as a simple barrier was unrealistic because Métis could ford rivers in Red River carts and on horseback; water-as-travel-route paths were on average shorter than water-as-barrier paths, but they crisscrossed lakes and created strange meanders, partly because the model prioritizes energetic cost over time cost.
  • Some local overlaps occurred—for example, the water travel section from Battleford to Fort Carlton, and areas leading into present-day Edmonton where township trails and LCPs followed similar routes—but these overlaps were inconsistent, sometimes matching the slope model and sometimes the slope-plus-water model.
  • Trails sometimes converged over long distances (e.g., between Fort Pitt and Fort Carlton) or deliberately passed through other significant places (e.g., trails from Lac Ste Anne going through St. Albert or Fort Edmonton), patterns not well captured by the LCP data.

Methods

  • Case study area: the North Saskatchewan River drainage, approximately 200,000 sq km within the Métis homeland of more than two million sq km; 13 fur trade, overwintering, and Métis sites were used as origin/destination points.
  • Inputs: a ~20 m resolution DEM (0.75 arc seconds) from Geogratis; two slope percentage rasters—one with water as a barrier (NODATA) and one with water not a barrier—using only permanent waterbodies; vegetation was excluded.
  • Analysis: ArcGIS Desktop 10.4 and ArcGIS Pro 1.3 cost distance/backlink rasters and best single path (modified energetic model based on Dijkstra’s algorithm) between every site pair, producing over 300 polylines compared against trails data from Archaeological Survey of Alberta township maps (recorded 1881–1900) and a georectified historic trails map.

Limitations

  • Stated: vegetation was not included because vegetation cover has changed significantly since the trails were in use; trails data have significant gaps in Alberta and no similar project exists for Saskatchewan; both trails datasets are subject to georectification error; not all surveyors recorded trails equally; only slope and water were considered, so paths indicate foot travel; dog sled/winter travel and seasonal daylight differences were not modeled; community knowledge is needed to identify additional variables.
  • Evident: the comparison between LCP outputs and trails is described as visual and preliminary, with no quantitative fit statistics reported; the study deliberately leaves standard LCP models unaltered, so it evaluates those standard models rather than refined alternatives; the trails data are treated as proxies for summer cart mobility and may not capture winter routes.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jas.2017.05.006

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 11 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § 7. Conclusions and future directions · p. 9

    Slope-based Least Cost Paths are not able to accurately model the locations of historic trails without greater refinement and grounding in local landscape knowledge.

    “The case study presented in this paper draws on historical data, indigenous knowledge, and archaeological data to demonstrate how GIS-based movement models typically applied in archaeology, speci fi cally slope-based Least Cost Paths, are not able to accurately model the locations of historic trails without greater re fi nement and grounding in local landscape knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Landscapes are not merely physical spaces through which to move; they are places of memory, kinship, familiarity, emotion, and danger.
    • Rests on an assumption: The choices people make on how they move across the landscape are culturally dependent and connected to historical, political, and social dynamics.
    • Rests on an assumption: One area that is not adequately accounted for in many applications of cost path models in archaeology are differences in how people might move through the landscape during different seasons of the year.
  • Findingreasoning
    § 5. Results · p. 7

    The areas where there is the most deviance from known trails are to the far west and far east of the study area, where the water-as-barrier model creates the large loops that avoid water systems.

    “The areas were there is the most deviance from known trails are to the far west and far east of the study area, where the water-asbarrier model creates the large loops that avoid water systems.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 5. Results · p. 6

    The general topography of the North Saskatchewan river drainage study area is relatively flat, with the only areas of steep slope being river valleys and coulees.

    “First, since the general topography of the region is relatively fl at (Fig. 6), with the only areas of steep slope being river valleys and coulees, generated paths tend to meander over the landscape.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 5. Results · p. 7

    Trails from Lac Ste Anne tend to go through St. Albert or Fort Edmonton on the way to additional places.

    “Trails from Lac Ste Anne, for example, tend to go through St. Albert or Fort Edmonton on the way to additional places.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingreasoning
    § 5. Results · p. 6

    Generated least cost paths tend to meander over the landscape.

    “generated paths tend to meander over the landscape.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 22
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 17

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 5. Results · p. 7

    The township trails, where available, show closer congruence with the LCP results in some areas, although are divergent in others.

    “The township trails, where available, show closer congruence with the LCP results in some areas, although are divergent in others.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning
    § 5. Results · p. 6

    On average, least cost paths along waterways were shorter than paths where water was a barrier, in part because there are many waterbodies in the region that paths avoid.

    “On average, paths along waterways were shorter than paths where water was a barrier, in part because there are a lot of waterbodies in the region that paths avoid.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 5. Results · p. 7

    In some cases, over long distances, trails converge into one path, whereas in others, trails seem to deliberately pass through other significant places, often not well captured by the least cost path data.

    “In some cases, over long distances, trails converge into one path (for example, the section between Fort Pitt and Fort Carlton), whereas in others, trails seem to deliberately pass through other signi fi cant places, often not well captured by the least cost path data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 5. Results · p. 7

    The overlaps between township trails and LCP results are not consistently more like one or the other model; rather, the overlaps happen sometimes with the slope model and sometimes with the slope + water model.

    “However, these overlaps are not consistently more like one or the other model; rather, the overlaps happen sometimes with the slope model and sometimes with the slope þ water model (see Fig. 8).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § 5. Results · p. 7

    Travel over waterways tends to be shorter, except over lakes, where trails go back and forth to create strange meanders.

    “Travel over waterways tend to be shorter, except over lakes, where trails go back and forth to create strange meanders.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning
    § 5. Results · p. 7

    In some places, the LCP does approximate the trails data, such as the water travel section from Battleford to Fort Carlton, but this is largely because trails sometimes follow the river systems.

    “In some places, the LCP does approximate the trails data (Fig. 7), such as the water travel section from Battleford to Fort Carlton, but this is largely because trails sometimes follow the river systems.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning
    § 5. Results · p. 7

    Trails tend to be shorter, creating more direct paths between locations, whereas even water routes tend to be longer than the main trails in some cases, since the model prioritizes energetic cost over time cost.

    “Trails tend to be shorter, creating more direct paths between locations, whereas even water routes tend to be longer than the main trails in some cases, since the model prioritizes energetic cost over time cost.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 6. Discussion · p. 8

    Models incorporating walking variables are not appropriate for the types of transportation used by the Métis, so even existing refinements accounting for walking across landscapes cannot easily be adapted to Métis mobility.

    “Models incorporating walking variables are not appropriate for the types of transportation used by the M etis, so even existing re fi nements accounting for walking across landscapes cannot easily be adapted to M etis mobility.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 6. Discussion · p. 9

    Dog sled travel over snow would require a different model, one that accounts not only for the ways dog sleds move, but also can model how snow cover impacts the landscape.

    “Dog sled travel over snow would require a different model, one that accounts not only for the ways dog sleds move, but also can model how snow cover impacts the landscape.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Métis people moved considerable distances during the winter using dog sleds, while Red River carts may have been the preferred mode of transportation in the summer months.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 4.1. Data · p. 6

    Other than slope and water, no other variables were considered, so the paths generated are indicative of foot travel between the origin and destination points.

    “Other than slope and water, no other variables were considered, so the paths generated are indicative of foot travel between the origin and destination points.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given
    § a b s t r a c t · p. 1

    The threads of indigenous GIS, social GIS, and indigenous archaeology have not yet been woven together in a way that informs how archaeologists analyse spatial data.

    “However, the threads of indigenous GIS, social GIS, and indigenous archaeology have not yet been woven together in a way that informs how archaeologists analyse spatial data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisereasoning
    § 3. Case study: the cultural landscape of the M etis Nation · p. 3

    Major trails used by the Métis during the 19th century are good proxies for Métis mobility, as they represent the primary means of moving across the landscape, especially during the summer months.

    “Major trails used by the M etis during the 19th century are therefore good proxies for M etis mobility, as they represent the primary means of moving across the landscape, especially during the summer months.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given
    § 3. Case study: the cultural landscape of the M etis Nation · p. 3

    The location of some historic trails used extensively by Métis communities is known, so they can provide a test against which to compare methods of least cost path analysis.

    “In addition, the location of some historic trails used extensively by M etis communities are known, so they can provide a test against which we can compare methods of least cost path analysis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 4.1. Data · p. 5

    Not all surveyors recorded trails equally, so there are significant gaps in areas of Alberta.

    “However, not all surveyors recorded trails equally, so there are signi fi cant gaps in areas of Alberta.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 6. Discussion · p. 8

    One of the benefits of having historic trails is they provide a check against which to test the utility of our models, creating a heuristic device that allows deficiencies in the models to be addressed.

    “One of the bene fi ts of having historic trails is they provide a check against which to test the utility of our models, creating a heuristic device that allows de fi ciencies in the models to be addressed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5. Results · p. 7

    The use of least cost paths based on slope and even slope with water included are not good approximations of the travel distance or route between these locations, in part due to landscape constraints and in part due to the simplicity of the model.

    “The use of least cost paths based on slope and even slope with water included, therefore, are not good approximations of the travel distance or route between these locations, in part due to landscape constraints and in part due to the simplicity of the model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5. Results · p. 6

    Métis could ford rivers in Red River carts and on horseback, so water as a simple barrier to travel is unrealistic and not a good model of Métis travel.

    “M etis could ford rivers in Red River carts and on horseback, so water as a simple barrier to travel is unrealistic and not a good model of M etis travel.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Métis could ford rivers in Red River carts and on horseback.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given
    § 4. Methods · p. 4

    In most case studies applying LCP analysis, the results are possible routes of human travel between important places or across broad landscapes.

    “In most case studies applying LCP analysis, the results are possible routes of human travel between important places or across broad landscapes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 4.1. Data · p. 5

    While some information on contemporary vegetation cover was available, the level of change in vegetation cover since the trails were in use is significant, so vegetation was not included in the analysis at this stage.

    “While some information on contemporary vegetation cover was available, the level of change in vegetation cover since the trails were in use is signi fi cant, so vegetation was not included in the analysis at this stage.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationown data
    § 4. Methods · p. 4

    The results indicate the need for LCP models grounded in local knowledge systems rather than generalized models that can be applied to any similar cultural context.

    “I suggest that the results indicate the need for LCP models grounded in local knowledge systems rather than generalized models that can be applied to any similar cultural context (e.g., hunter-gatherers).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given
    § a b s t r a c t · p. 1

    Indigenous knowledges of landscapes have not often explicitly informed GIS analyses in archaeology, even though archaeologists and indigenous communities around the world are forging collaborative relationships.

    “Indigenous knowledges of landscapes have not often explicitly informed GIS analyses in archaeology, even though archaeologists and indigenous communities around the world are forging collaborative relationships.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 4.1. Data · p. 5

    Both trails datasets are subject to a degree of error based on the georectification process, but at the scale of analysis, these errors should not have major impacts on the outcomes.

    “Both datasets are subject to a degree of error based on the georecti fi cation process, but at the scale of analysis, these errors should not have major impacts on the outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5. Results · p. 7

    While the Métis were known to travel on waterways in certain circumstances, the network of trails throughout the region, along with the historical record, indicates that other modes of transportation were preferred in many cases.

    “While the M etis were known to travel on waterways in certain circumstances, the network of trails throughout the region, along with the historical record, indicates that other modes of transportation were preferred in many cases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § 4.1. Data · p. 5

    The trails from the township survey maps would have been recorded by original surveyors between 1881 and 1900 and likely have a reasonably high degree of accuracy, both in original recording and subsequent georectification.

    “The trails from the township survey maps would have been recorded by original surveyors between 1881 and 1900 and likely have a reasonably high degree of accuracy, both in original recording and subsequent georecti fi cation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hannis, 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 6. Discussion · p. 9

    One challenge in using LCP analyses is the level to which physical models of travel can capture the complex decisions made by people in landscapes where they have intimate knowledge of the places through which they travel.

    “One challenge in using LCP analyses is the level to which physical models of travel can capture the complex decisions made by people in landscapes where they have intimate knowledge of the places through which they travel.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The choices people make on how they move across the landscape are culturally dependent and connected to historical, political, and social dynamics.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 2. GIS, indigenous knowledge, and archaeology · p. 2

    A set of methods that work in one indigenous context do not necessarily work in another.

    “A set of methods that work in one indigenous context do not necessarily work in another, meaning that collaboration with indigenous communities is essential for an Indigenous GIS (Palmer, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Palmer, 2012 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction · p. 1

    GIS analyses in archaeology have been criticized by archaeologists for being deterministic, mathematically driven, objective, and too far separated from the lives of people.

    “Concurrently, GIS as a tool within archaeology has been subject to critique for being deterministic, mathematically driven, objective, and too far separated from the lives of people (Thomas, 2001; Hac i güzeller, 2012; Schuurman and Pratt, 2002; Thomas, 2004; Brück, 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Thomas, 2001

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hac i güzeller, 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Schuurman and Pratt, 2002 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given
    § 6. Discussion · p. 8

    Least Cost Path is one of the most commonly applied analyses to archaeological data and has been the subject of considerable research and critique.

    “Least Cost Path is one of the most commonly applied analyses to archaeological data and has been the subject of considerable research and critique.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given
    § a b s t r a c t · p. 1

    Research over the past 20 years has demonstrated the power of GIS data and analyses to explore complex social questions about past human experiences.

    “However, research over the past 20 years has demonstrated the power of GIS data and analyses to explore complex social questions about past human experiences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given
    § 2. GIS, indigenous knowledge, and archaeology · p. 2

    Most indigenous GIS mapping projects focus on visualization of important places and practices rather than transforming the ways in which researchers use GIS, and none are directly related to archaeological uses of GIS.

    “However, most of these projects focus on visualization of important places and practices rather than transforming the ways in which researchers use GIS, and none are directly related to archaeological uses of GIS.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 4.1. Data · p. 5

    A similar project has not been undertaken in Saskatchewan.

    “A similar project has not been undertaken in Saskatchewan.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
31 of 31

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Métis could ford rivers in Red River carts and on horseback.

    “M etis could ford rivers in Red River carts and on horseback, so water as a simple barrier to travel is unrealistic and not a good model of M etis travel.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Landscapes are not merely physical spaces through which to move; they are places of memory, kinship, familiarity, emotion, and danger.

    “Landscapes are not merely physical spaces through which to move; they are places of memory, kinship, familiarity, emotion, and danger.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The choices people make on how they move across the landscape are culturally dependent and connected to historical, political, and social dynamics.

    “The choices people make on how they move across the landscape are culturally dependent and connected to historical, political, and social dynamics.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Métis people moved considerable distances during the winter using dog sleds, while Red River carts may have been the preferred mode of transportation in the summer months.

    “while Red River carts may have been the preferred mode of transportation in the summer months, M etis people also moved considerable distances during the winter using dog sleds.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Hours of daylight impact the distance people could travel in a day.

    “Another signi fi cant consideration based on season is how hours of daylight impact the distance people could travel in a day.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    During the dead of winter, there are less than 8 h of daylight at these latitudes, whereas in the summer, there are over 16 h of daylight.

    “During the dead of winter, there are less than 8 h of daylight at these latitudes, whereas in the summer, there are over 16 h of daylight.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    One area that is not adequately accounted for in many applications of cost path models in archaeology are differences in how people might move through the landscape during different seasons of the year.

    “One area that is not adequately accounted for in many applications of cost path models in archaeology are differences in how people might move through the landscape during different seasons of the year.”
7 of 7

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

8 of the 120 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Burley, 1989, Flaked stone technology and the 1870s hivernant metis: a question of context, Can. J. Archaeol., 13, 151
  2. Garcia-Moreno, 2013, To see or to Be seen… is that the Question? An evaluation of palaeolithic sites' visual presence and their role in social organization, J. Anthropol. Archaeol., 32, 647, 10.1016/j.jaa.2013.03.003 · DOI
  3. Krist, 1994, GIS modeling of paleo-indian period caribou migrations and viewsheds in northeastern lower Michigan, Photogrammetric Eng. remote Sens., 60, 1129
  4. Lock, 2001, Theorising the practice or practicing the theory: archaeology and GIS, Archaeol. Pol., 39, 153
  5. Maschner, 1996, The politics of settlement choice on the Northwest coast: cognition, GIS Coast. Landscapes, 175
  6. Mitcham, 2002, In search of a defensible site: a GIS analysis of Hampshire hillforts, Univ. Southampt. Dep. Archaeol. Monogr., 3, 73
  7. Sasso, 2011, GIS analysis of nineteenth century Potawatomi site selection in southeastern Wisconsin, Wis. Archeol., 92, 45

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Supernant, K.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Supernant, Kisha
ORCID
Supernant, Kisha
Venue
Journal of Archaeological Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
84
Pages
63-73
ISSN
0305-4403 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jas.2017.05.006
OpenAlex
W2616976253
Cited by
64
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2
FWCI
13.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Journal of Archaeological Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (IDG: 430-2012-0138, IG: 435-2015-0876)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeological Research and Protection
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Historical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Keywords
least-cost path analysis, indigenous traditional knowledge, landscape archaeology, historic trails, motion modeling, archaeological GIS, collaborative archaeology, Canadian West, environmental determinism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review