MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

RADIOCARBON DATING ARCHAEOLOGICAL SAMPLES IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN, 1730 TO 1480 BC: FURTHER EXPLORING THE ATMOSPHERIC RADIOCARBON CALIBRATION RECORD AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS*

2010· article· en· W1943007785 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sturt W. Manning, Bernd Kromer

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeometry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitute for Aegean Prehistory
KeywordsRadiocarbon datingChronologyArchaeologyGeologyDendrochronologyJuniperAbsolute datingMediterranean climateGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The East Mediterranean Radiocarbon (Inter‐)Comparison Project (EMRCP) has measured time series of radiocarbon ages for known age samples of German oak (GeO) and for samples from the near‐absolutely placed Gordion juniper dendrochronology from central Anatolia. In this paper, we review the data for the calendar years from 1730 to 1480 bc, relevant in particular to controversy and debate concerning the absolute date of the Minoan eruption of the Santorini (Thera) volcano. We consider the issue of the radiocarbon (14C) dating of the Santorini eruption, and the problem of how this relates to the archaeological record and historical chronology of Egypt in light of the 14C data. We find that these 14C data, and other recent radiocarbon work, provide good grounds to be confident in the possibility of a robust radiocarbon‐based chronology for the eastern Mediterranean. In contrast, as the radiocarbon case becomes stronger, questions must be asked about some archaeological dating: in particular, at the site of Tell el‐Dab‘a in the Nile Delta of Egypt.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeometrySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207