The impact of the roman agriculture on the territory of Savaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first reconstruction of the centuriatio of Savaria was attempted by András Mócsy, who tried to draw itwith the utilization of mid-scale topographical maps. Since his publication there were no archaeological at-tempt in the last 40 years to prove his theory. In the last recent years we tried to continue the survey of theSavarian centuriatio’s existence with support of GIS methods. Fortunately, an interesting relationship wasnoted between the informations of some archaeological excavations and the aerial archaeological phenom-ena, thus, we were able to build a predictive model-network of the assumed centuriatio. The new grid totallydiffers from the previous reconstruction. The predictive model’s agglomeration of the assumed centuriatio-traces could be refined, and the refined model was controlled with the use of archaeological field survey andgeophysical survey as well. The new reconstruction resulted new opportunities in the interpretation of exca-vated sites or former known roman roads and aqueducts, discovered in the last decades. An other interestingrelationship could be found between the water courses that ran on the former territory of the colonia andthe roman field boundary system: the probable impact of the roman agriculture on the landscape that af-fected the “premodern” (prior to the modern stream regulations) watercourse system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".