Archaeological Testing of a 3.3-acre Parcel, Mesa, Arizona
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The results of an archaeological testing program conducted by Desert Archaeology, Inc., within a 3.3- acre property (Parcel No. 136-08-007-H) located in Mesa, Arizona, are presented in this report. The work was prompted by discovery of a small prehistoric artifact scatter during a cultural resources survey (Clark 2006) near an area where prehistoric trash and house mounds had been recorded in the early twentieth century. The artifacts and previous record suggested the potential for buried archaeological remains within the property. The purpose of the testing was to determine if such remains were present, and if found, to evaluate them in terms of their integrity, extent, and significance. This work was conducted at the request of the Venture Development Group, as required by the City of Mesa Historic Preservation Office and in compliance with Section 106 of the National Preservation Historic Act, as the planned construction of a bank in the eastern quarter of the lot represents a federal undertaking. Dr. Tiffany Clark directed the fieldwork, which began on 31 January 2007, and was completed in four person days of effort on 2 February 2007. The fieldwork was in accordance with the testing plan prepared by Desert Archaeology (Henderson 2007), with modifications to address comments provided by the City of Mesa and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) (Bilsbarrow 2007). The testing strategy was also altered as information about the subsurface context was obtained from initial trench excavations. A total of 166 m of trench was excavated during testing. Although small quantities of prehistoric artifacts were observed, no archaeological features were found on the property. The testing program also established that the subsurface context of the property has been substantially disturbed and modified in the modern era. Based on the findings, it is concluded that development of the parcel will not have an effect on significant cultural resources. A recommendation is made that development of the property proceed as planned.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».