A reconstruction of Quaternary pluvial environments and human occupations using stratigraphy and geochronology of fossil‐spring tufas, Kharga Oasis, Egypt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We carried out a geologic survey and a preliminary archaeological survey of four fossil‐spring tufa localities in Kharga Oasis, Egypt, to constrain the timing of pluvial episodes in the Western Desert, and to document prehistoric occupation contemporaneous with times of increased rainfall. Uranium‐series dating of the tufas confirms that at least five episodes of tufa deposition are represented in Kharga, although not every event is represented at each locality. Across the region studied, tufas were most frequently deposited as part of a fluvial barrage system, characterized by terraced, vegetated pools impounded by arcuate tufa dams and separated by small waterfalls. Available water resources during pluvial phases would have included not only spring‐fed streams but also small freshwater lakes. While Earlier Stone Age (ESA) and Middle Stone Age (MSA) lithic artifacts may be found either as surficial lags on tufas, or, less commonly, encased within tufas, Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic artifacts are generally found in or on silts within surface deflation depressions in the tufas, principally at Wadi Midauwara. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".