MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005697997 · doi:10.1353/mou.0.0062

Preliminary Report of the Humayma Excavation Project, 2002, 2004–2005: The Roman Fort: Part I: Geophysical Surveys, Praetorium and Horreum

2008· article· fr· W2005697997 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew N. Sherwood, John Peter Oleson, Erik de Bruijn, George Phillips Bevan, Gregory S. Baker, Heather M. Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of Canada · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcavationArchaeologyHumanitiesGeologyArtGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les études géophysiques et les fouilles effectuées en 2002, 2004 et 2005 sur le site Nabathéen, Romain, Byzantin et Abbaside de Humayma en Jordanie nous ont permis de progresser considérablement dans notre compréhension du site et de sa chronologie. Deux saisons de relevés géophysiques ont confirmé quelques-unes des hypothèses concernant l'intérieur du fort Romain et nous ont fourni des indications quant à des caractéristiques jusqu'ici inconnues comme un système de fossés potentiel et un titulum à l'extérieur des fortifications. Les fouilles concentrées sur l'intérieur du fort ont presque établi le plan du Praetorium avec sa décoration de mosaïques ainsi que recouvré, y attenant, un petit bain auquel on ne s'attendait pas. En continuant l'excavation dans la partie orientale du fort, on a découvert l'existence d'un Horrea d'une certaine importance et de style occidental. Finalement, l'examen des des parties moins examinées ont fourni la preuve d'un petit complexe de latrines dans le secteur sud-ouest, établi une meilleure compréhension du réservoir et du système de distribution des eaux dans le secteur nord-ouest et révélé l'existence d'un escalier ou d'une plateforme d'artillerie dans le secteur sud-est.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of CanadaSame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207