MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022161336 · doi:10.3989/tp.2011.11057

La ocupación paleolítica del Alentejo meridional: investigación en la cuenca del río Sado

2011· article· es· W2022161336 on OpenAlexafffund
Ariane Burke, Liliane Meignen, Michael S. Bisson, Nuno Pimentel, Virginia Henriques, César Andrade, Maria Conceição Freitas, Masa Kageyama, William J. Fletcher, Carla Parslow, Dario Guiducci

Bibliographic record

VenueTrabajos de Prehistoria · 2011
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)McGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversité de MontréalMcMaster University
KeywordsArchaeologyGeographyDrainageGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El proyecto de prospección de la cuenca del río Sado (SRDS), llevado a cabo entre el 2004 y el 2008, se diseñó para suplir la carencia de información concerniente al conocimiento actual de la Prehistoria de Portugal. Aunque la cuenca del río Sado conforma casi un tercio de la superficie continental de Portugal, aún no había recibido la debida atención para el Paleolítico. Antes de este proyecto, prácticamente nada se conocía acerca de la Prehistoria de dicha cuenca, incluyendo la llanura de Alentejo. Nuestros resultados indican una baja densidad de población durante el Paleolítico Medio, rastro de ocupaciones del Paleolítico Inferior y casi ninguna evidencia de ocupaciones asociadas al Paleolítico Reciente. A partir de los datos obtenidos, se desprende un modelo en el que se evidencia que, hacia finales del Paleolítico Medio, hubo una discontinuidad en la ocupación, probablemente asociada a cambios climáticos o del uso del territorio.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrabajos de PrehistoriaSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207