MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984582141 · doi:10.2458/azu_rc.57.18188

New AMS <sup>14</sup>C Dates for Human Remains from Stone Age Sites in the Iron Gates Reach of the Danube, Southeast Europe

2015· article· en· W1984582141 on OpenAlexaff
Clive Bonsall, Rastko Vasić, Adina Boroneanț, Mirjana Roksandić, Andrei Soficaru, Kathleen McSweeney, Anna Evatt, Ü Aguraiuja-Lätti, Catriona Pickard, Vesna Dimitrijević, Thomas Higham, Derek Hamilton, Gordon Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiocarbon · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersArts and Humanities Research CouncilUniversity of EdinburghCarnegie Trust for the Universities of ScotlandNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsMesolithicArchaeologyRadiocarbon datingChronologyHuman boneIron AgeStone AgeGeologyGeographySettlement (finance)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Archaeological investigations in the Iron Gates reach of the Lower Danube Valley between 1964 and 1984 revealed an important concentration of Stone Age sites, which together provide the most detailed record of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic settlement from any area of southeastern Europe. Over 425 human burials were excavated from 15 sites. Of these, less than one-fifth have been directly dated. This article presents 37 new AMS dates on human bone from five sites in the Iron Gates, together with the corresponding δ13C and δ15N values. They include the first dates on human bone from two sites, Icoana and Velesnica. The results are important for the chronology of Stone Age mortuary practices in the Iron Gates and the timing of the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in the region.

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)0.000
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations42
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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