Assessing Damage to Archaeological Artefacts in Compacted Soil Using Microcomputed Tomography Scanning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This laboratory study investigated the susceptibility of subsurface archaeological ecofacts/artefacts to incidental damage from utility construction activities, as it pertains to the cultural heritage aspects of environmental impact assessment and municipal planning. The research objective was to use X‐ray microcomputed tomography (micro‐CT) imaging to non‐destructively determine the nature and extent of any damage inflicted on a range of ecofact and artefact types (authentic and replica) embedded in repacked, plastic clay soil by pure soil strain at variable levels of static load compactive effort up to 600 kPa. Uniaxial soil compression testing and micro‐CT imaging were combined procedurally to meet this objective. It was concluded that lithic artefacts were largely immune to damage from stresses up to 600 kPa due to their high strength properties, while moderately fragile ecofacts (replica charred maize kernels) exhibited evidence of dimensional distortion, but not of breakage. Very fragile ecofacts (unionid freshwater clam shells) showed dimensional distortion and minor structural damage at lower stresses (50 and 100 kPa), but significant breakage and fragmentation at higher stresses (300 and 600 kPa). Overall, the micro‐CT technique was shown to be useful in monitoring and describing any breakage or morphometric distortion in a wide range of test ecofacts/artefacts compressed in a clay‐rich soil matrix. However, earthen artefacts, such as terra cotta pottery sherds, were found to be problematic using the micro‐CT imaging technique for this application due to similarities in the densities of the ceramic sherds and the surrounding compressed soil matrix. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".