MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1575856100 · doi:10.1111/arcm.12079

Electron Microprobe Analysis of 9th-12th Century Islamic Glass from Córdoba, Spain

2014· article· en· W1575856100 on OpenAlexaff
Chloë N. Duckworth, Ricardo Córdoba de la Llave, Edward Faber, Denis J. Edwards, Julian Henderson

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeometry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsNorthern Ontario Academic Medicine Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectron microprobeParallelsImpuritySilica glassMineralogyMicroprobeIslamEMPAGeologyAncient historyArchaeologyMetallurgyMaterials scienceChemistryGeographyHistoryComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twenty-six samples from domestic assemblages of 9th–12th century Córdoba were subjected to electron microprobe analysis. The results reveal two main compositional types. The first, encountered in 13 of the samples, seems to result from the combination of plant ashes with high-impurity sand, and has some contemporary parallels from Syria and Egypt. The second type is a lead–soda–silica glass, encountered in a relatively high proportion of the glasses (11 of the 26 sampled), possibly formed by the addition of lead metal to existing glasses and with very few known parallels. These are among a very small number of results available to date on the chemical composition of glasses from medieval Spain, and the presence of a high proportion of lead–soda–silica glasses is particularly interesting, possibly indicating a technological practice unique to, or originating in, the western Muslim world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeometrySame topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207