MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2000· article· en· W1976439944 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 · 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.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
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