Las más antiguas cerámicas fenicias localizadas en Huelva según el registro de Tell Abu Hawan (Haifa, Israel), y su relación con el contexto histórico peninsular
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Durante gran parte del siglo XX la presencia fenicia en Occidente ha sido uno de los temas más debatidos de nuestra Protohistoria pues, con la llegada de los comerciantes orientales, se documentaba el inicio de un importante cambio en la sociedad local experimentados en todos los niveles de su desarrollo. Como la cronología de los primeros contactos continúa siendo el principal debate, en este trabajo se explica el paralelismo de las primeras cerámicas localizadas en Huelva con la evolución de la cultura material de un hübur fenicio paradigmático y su relación con los hitos de cronología arqueológica. Finalmente se analiza su contextualización histórica en relación a otros asentamientos de la Península Ibérica._____________________________Phoenicians arrival to the Iberian peninsula has been highly debated in the last years as both Western Phonicians and local society evolved closely associated to Mediterranean historical evolution hence forth. As the chronology of first contacts is still a case of controversy, in this paper the sychronism of the earliest phoenician pottery located in Huelva with the material culture evolution of a paradimactic phoenician hübur is explained, and also their connections with historical chronology hints. Finally historical context of said pottery in connection with some other Iberian Peninsula finds is analysed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".