MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MEASURING CHRONOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTY IN INTENSIVE SURVEY FINDS: A CASE STUDY FROM ANTIKYTHERA, GREECE*

2012· article· en· W1899065294 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeometry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaArts and Humanities Research CouncilResearch Councils UK
KeywordsArchaeologyPotterySet (abstract data type)Scale (ratio)Focus (optics)Field (mathematics)Probabilistic logicHistoryGeographyEpistemologyComputer scienceCartographyPhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers how to make the most out of the rather imprecise chronological knowledge that we often have about the past. We focus here on the relative dating of artefacts during archaeological fieldwork, with particular emphasis on new ways to express and analyse chronological uncertainty. A probabilistic method for assigning artefacts to particular chronological periods is advocated and implemented for a large pottery data set from an intensive survey of the Greek island of Antikythera. We also highlight several statistical methods for exploring how uncertainty is shared amongst different periods in this data set and how these observed associations can prompt more sensitive interpretations of landscape‐scale patterns. The concluding discussion re‐emphasizes why these issues are relevant to wider methodological debates in archaeological field practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.171 · 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