MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distinguishing bioturbation and trampling using pottery sherd measures, Tell Fendi, Jordan

2000· article· en· W1988215018 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Blackham

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoarchaeology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTramplingBioturbationPotteryDisturbance (geology)ArchaeologyArtifact (error)GeologyGeographyPaleontologyEcologyBiologySediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Levant, the blind mole-rat (Spalax ehrenbergi) is responsible for much disturbance at archaeological sites, but its potential destructiveness is often ignored when cultural remains are interpreted. The effects of mole-rat burrowing on artifact distributions were evaluated through a study of mole-hill contents and by doing a vertical particle-size analysis of ceramic materials drawn from Tell Fendi, a Late Chalcolithic (6600–5500 B.P.) site in the Jordan Valley. While the general effects of animal burrowing are predictable to some degree, stratigraphic units affected by burrowing may not be immediately obvious to the archaeologist. The problem of identification is compounded because other disturbance processes produce similar effects. This study proposes a method for identifying bioturbation layers and for distinguishing these layers from both trampled surfaces and in situ contexts by means of pottery sherd measures. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoarchaeologySame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207