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 \npeninsula has been highly debated \nin the last years as both Western \nPhonicians and local society evolved \nclosely associated to Mediterranean \nhistorical evolution hence forth. As \nthe chronology of first contacts is still \na case of controversy, in this paper \nthe sychronism of the earliest \nphoenician pottery located in Huelva \nwith the material culture evolution of \na paradimactic phoenician hübur is \nexplained, and also their connections \nwith historical chronology hints. \nFinally historical context of said \npottery in connection with some other \nIberian 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".