MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE ROMANESQUE FRIEZE AT LINCOLN CATHEDRAL (ENGLAND)—PRIMARY OR SECONDARY INSERTION? MAGNETIC CONSIDERATIONS*

2000· article· en· W1976439944 on OpenAlexafffund
L Empire Maker, Graham J. Borradaile, J. D. Stewart, Martin O’Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeometry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFriezeMasonryGeologyArchaeologyStyle (visual arts)ArtArt historyHistoryPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current debate about the age of the Romanesque frieze of Lincoln Cathedral weighs archaeological evidence against art history. On the one hand, the panels appear to be an integral part of the original Norman structure built by the first bishop (AD 1072–92). However, on grounds of style and artistic comparisons, art historians argue for a later installation during the restoration of AD 1141–6. In order to determine when the panels were stabilized in the cathedral, we used a new method that measures their degree of remagnetization by the earth's magnetic field since they were quarried. The longer that masonry remains stabilized in a given orientation, the greater its viscous remagnetization. Viscous remanent magnetization dating has previously been successful with this particular type of limestone masonry. Our results lend support to the view that the panels were installed in the early 1140s.

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)0.002
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeometrySame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207