The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 5 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools
Open accessAbstract
Abstract A Late Prehistoric period buffalo kill and butchering site in northern Wyoming (Site 48 JO 312) produced a large number of stone tools. Flakes removed in sharpening stone tools provided much of the interpretation of the activity that occurred at the site and in addition gave a number of ideas concerning tool use and sharpening.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Analysis of retouch ("sharpening") flakes from the Late Prehistoric Piney Creek bison kill and butchering site (48 JO 312) in northern Wyoming shows that five identifiable categories of flakes record stylized resharpening of bifaces, side scrapers, and end scrapers, and that these flakes often yield more information about site activities than the discarded tools themselves. Measurements of striking platforms allow estimates of how much tool width was lost per use-and-resharpening cycle and how many cycles a given tool underwent.
Key findings
- Five categories of retouch flakes were identified in the Piney Creek material: flakes of bifacial retouch; three categories of side-scraper retouch flakes (including flakes struck from the flat side of side scrapers, and subsequent conventional resharpening flakes); and end-scraper retouch flakes.
- By actual measurement, 100 flakes of bifacial retouch (all metamorphosed shales, the most common material at the site) had striking platforms of an average and median width of 2.2 mm; experiments suggested about 2.0 mm was the average width one biface edge was reduced per sharpening, with wear estimated at 1.0–2.0 mm, giving a total of 3.0–4.0 mm lost per edge per use-and-resharpening cycle.
- One biface (Fig. 2g) was estimated at about 75–80 mm wide when first broken and 46 mm wide when broken the last time and discarded; each blade edge was reduced between 14 and 17 mm, suggesting each edge may have been resharpened four or five times.
- At the site, "as much or more information, concerning activities performed there, was derived from the retouch flakes as from the tools"; in the kill area there was very little evidence of tool use in the form of actual tools, but retouch flakes demonstrated tool use commensurate with the operation.
Methods
- Excavation during the summers of 1964 and 1965 of a buffalo kill and butchering area along Piney Creek on the eastern flanks of the Big Horn Mountains, northern Wyoming; approximately 200 bison (*Bison bison*) were driven over a steep slope, with the kill area at the base and a butchering area about 300 ft. away. The operation is dated to around the latter part of the 16th century and represents a one-year operation, probably several drives within a drive season.
- Microscopic examination of unworked flakes, drawing on Bordes's (1961) concept of flakes of bifacial retouch, Semenov's (1964) ideas on use-wear traces, and Jelinek's (1965) notes on hard and soft hammer percussion; flakes were matched back into their flake scars on tools.
- Quantitative comparison of striking-platform widths of retouch flakes with experimental and observational estimates of edge reduction from wear and sharpening, applied to measurements of individual tools.
Limitations
- Stated by the paper: microscopic analysis is time consuming and the ability to recognize evidence of tool use is acquired with difficulty; straightforward interpretations may often be shown on only a small percentage of the total specimens; it is "as yet difficult to assign tool wear on a working edge to any specific function except within broad limits"; evidence is often difficult to photograph or otherwise preserve so that it can be seen and confirmed by others; and such analysis requires some background in the mechanics and use of simple tools.
- Stated by the paper: few end-scraper retouch flakes were recovered "due to the mesh size of the screens used in excavation," so that category is underrepresented in the sample.
- Evident from the text: the quantitative estimates of wear (1.0–2.0 mm) and of edge reduction per sharpening (about 2.0 mm) rest on experiments and comparisons rather than direct observation, and the paper itself notes the evidence comes from "a rather limited context," though it argues the results can be generalized.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 5 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Approximately 200 buffalo (Bison bison) were killed by driving them over a steep slope along a stream called Piney Creek.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The collection of retouch flakes is of a homogeneous nature which suggests several things.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A Late Prehistoric period buffalo kill and butchering site in northern Wyoming (Site 48 JO 312) produced a large number of stone tools.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“During the summers of 1964 and 1965, a buffalo kill and butchering area was excavated in northern Wyoming along the eastern flanks of the Big Horn Mountains (Frison 1967).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
In the paper
“The first category is what Bordes (1961: 6) would call flakes of bifacial retouch which were removed from biface tools, lenticular in transverse cross section, that became dull through use.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bordes (1961: 6)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By actual measurement, 100 flakes of bifacial retouch, all of metamorphosed shales (the most common material at the site), have striking platforms of an average and median width of 2.2 mm.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The side-scraper retouch flakes were different from and distinguished from the first category by the fact that the striking platforms are part of the flat inner flake faces and constitute one side of the tools (Fig. 3a) and are usually at nearly a right angle to the adjacent portion of the back of the flake, which is the dulled edge of the tool (Fig. lb).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Occasionally a ground edge or a polish or gloss that partially obscured the scalar retouch appeared, which suggests different functions of the tools in the category from which these flakes were removed.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the Piney Creek site, as much or more information, concerning activities performed there, was derived from the retouch flakes as from the tools.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within certain limits, there are five categories of retouch flakes or sharpening flakes that can be readily identified in the Piney Creek material and into which most of the unworked flake collection can be placed: One includes retouch flakes from bifaces; three include different retouch flakes from side scrapers; and one includes end-scraper retouch flakes.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Experiments suggested that about 2.0 mm. was the average width that one edge of a biface tool was reduced through removal of retouch flakes in a single sharpening process.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Stone tools become dull rather quickly but are surprisingly effective if kept sharp and if their structural limitations are kept in mind.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another (Fig. 2/) was reduced in size after having been broken one time; but, after being broken at a later time, the largest piece of the tool was changed into an end scraper.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A third and much smaller category of retouch flakes are those that were removed from the flat side of side scrapers, which technically changed the side scraper into a biface tool but did not change its function.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two other tools are side scrapers (Fig. 2i, k) which were broken at an early stage, and continued use and resharpening reduced them in size but with little change in shape indicated.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The striking platforms of these flakes are usually faceted, and ridges between flake scars appear for they include a small part of one side of the biface tool (Fig. la).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the kill area there was very little evidence of tool use in the form of actual tools, but, by using the evidence from the retouch flakes, an amount of tool use commensurate with what would be expected from such an operation could be demonstrated.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Retouch flakes had no further utilitarian value and therefore remained where they were removed.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is good evidence to suggest that nearly every carcass was carefully butchered, and all bones that contained any significant amount of grease were broken.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Retouch flakes were found in the kill area; the broken tool was recovered in the butchering area.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedSingle caseTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All working edges of tools in their separate categories were at about the same stage of dullness when they were resharpened, indicating that a recognized point existed when it was necessary to sharpen a tool rather than continue with a dull one.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Stone tools become dull rather quickly but are surprisingly effective if kept sharp and if their structural limitations are kept in mind.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Often a fine scalar retouch is common on the working edges, but wear striations at right angles to the working edges are usually also visible under magnification.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, end scrapers in this collection were not as thick as the^gide scrapers; the flakes removed in the sharpening process were narrower and shorter, and they demonstrated smaller striking platforms than the other retouch flakes mentioned.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The amount the same edge of the tool was reduced through wear was estimated at from 1.0 to 2.0 mm., which suggests a total of 3.0 to 4.0 mm. that one edge of a biface tool was reduced in width through one cycle of use and resharpening.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Stone tools become dull rather quickly but are surprisingly effective if kept sharp and if their structural limitations are kept in mind.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can be demonstrated (Fig. lc) that removal of a series of flakes from the flat side of side scrapers did not reduce the width of a tool and actually resulted in gaining one cycle in the use and sharpening process, provided the tool was thick enough to withstand thinning and not be structurally weakened in the process.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In both the kill and butchering areas of this site, known as the Piney Creek site (48 JO 312), nearly all the unworked flakes were relatively small, and they did not appear to have been the result of tool manufacture.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Materials used for manufacture of end scrapers are noticeably superior to those of other tools, and this could reflect different functions and also a greater tool value resulting from the added work of hafting.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“everything together suggests that, under the conditions that existed, the manufacturers were maximizing the amount of use in their tools and performing the job of butchering and preserving meat in such a way that choices were necessary, at points during the operation, which were made in the best interests of completing the job with the least expenditure of effort at the level of technology that”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is as yet difficult to assign tool wear on a working edge to any specific function except within broad limits!”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After removal of this series of retouch flakes, however, the tool was used to the extent that it was again dull and was ready to be resharpened when it was probably broken.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The next explanation was that they were somehow related to the activities performed at the site.”
Tests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The tools, features, and bones in the butchering area suggest the purpose of this operation was to obtain, process, and preserve meat, probably for use during periods when food was scarce.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, in this particular context, the tools themselves did not provide a basis for a valid interpretation, which the retouch flakes did provide.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Retouch flakes had no further utilitarian value and therefore remained where they were removed.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The site represents a one-year operation, but the number of animals killed probably represents several different drives during the drive season.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were evidently cycles of use, and resharpening by very stylized processes.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Stone tools become dull rather quickly but are surprisingly effective if kept sharp and if their structural limitations are kept in mind.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tools such as side scrapers, end scrapers, knives, and drills were continually modified throughout their lifetime of functional utility, and at the time when they were discarded or became nonfunctional, they were usually quite different than when originally completed.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The working edge of the retouch flake as shown under magnification (Fig. 3i) was dulled, apparently through use, and in this case there is a suggestion that removal of a conventional side-scraper retouch flake would have narrowed the tool excessively.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Obviously, speculation such as this could go on indefinitely, but the fact remains that the information offered by retouch flakes can result in better interpretations concerning tool use; and this will undoubtedly have its effects in other areas of interest as well.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“An Early Middle period bison kill in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming produced retouch flakes that gave a more valid interpretation of the activities at the site than the tools were able to offer (Frison 1968).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Frison 1968 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
Stone tools become dull rather quickly but are surprisingly effective if kept sharp and if their structural limitations are kept in mind.
“Stone tools become dull rather quickly but are surprisingly effective if kept sharp and if their structural limitations are kept in mind.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Retouch flakes had no further utilitarian value and therefore remained where they were removed.
“The retouch flakes remained where they were removed as they had no further utilitarian value.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Side-scraper retouch flakes assigned different category numbers
MinorThe text assigns ordinary side-scraper retouch flakes to the second category, but the Figure 3 caption calls the typical side-scraper retouch flake category one. The first category is assigned to bifacial retouch flakes.
“The second category of retouch flakes includes those classified as side-scraper retouch flakes.”
“Figure: FIG. 3. a, enlarged view of striking platform of typical side-scraper retouch flake of category one;”
Citations
Cites
Toth, N. P., Blades, B. S., Wright, R. P., & Killick, D. J. (2015) · AccessScience · doi:10.1036/1097-8542.543250 · Cited by 399
The Piney Creek sites, Wyoming
Frbon, G. C. (1967) · Cited by 27
Lithic Technology Conference, Les Eyzies, France
Jelinek, A. J. (1965) · American Antiquity · doi:10.2307/2694000 · Cited by 22
Site 48SH312: An Early Middle Period Bison Kill in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming
Frison, G. C. (1968) · Plains Anthropologist · doi:10.1080/2052546.1968.11908483 · Cited by 13
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Bordes, 1961, Publications de I’Institut de I’Université de Bordeaux, Mémoire
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toward the Identification of Formation Processes
Schiffer, M. B. (1983) · American Antiquity · doi:10.2307/279771 · Cited by 597
Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination
Shott, M. (1986) · Journal of Anthropological Research · doi:10.1086/jar.42.1.3630378 · Cited by 477
Middle paleolithic scraper reduction: Background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date
Dibble, H. L. (1995) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/bf02229003 · Cited by 360
Middle paleolithic symbolism: A review of current evidence and interpretations
Chase, P. G., & Dibble, H. L. (1987) · Journal of Anthropological Archaeology · doi:10.1016/0278-4165(87)90003-1 · Cited by 358
A New Synthesis of Middle Paleolithic Variability
Rolland, N., & Dibble, H. L. (1990) · American Antiquity · doi:10.2307/281279 · Cited by 340
Metadata
- Authors
- Frison, G. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Wyoming (US)
- Corresponding author
- Frison, George C.
- Venue
- American Antiquity
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1968-04
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 149-155
- ISSN
- 0002-7316 (ISSN-L)
- 2325-5064
- OpenAlex
- W2040220597
- Semantic Scholar
- e567a0bdba7004a12437a8c9bdc6846b9bb50490
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 24.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Antiquity (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- University of Michigan
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Archaeological and Geological Studies
- Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
- Keywords
- chipped stone tools, stone flakes, tool sharpening, butchery, Late Prehistory, lithic technology, tool use
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 2026-11-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-08 (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
