On establishing ceramic chemical groups: exploring the influence of data analysis methods and the role of the elements chosen in analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1970s, archaeologists have increasingly depended on archaeometric rather than strictly stylistic data to explore questions of ceramic provenance and technol- ogy, and, by extension, trade, exchange, social networks and even identity. It is accepted as obvious by some archaeometrists and statisti- cians that the results of the analyses of compo- sitional data may be dependent on the format of the data used, on the data exploration method employed and, in the case of multivari- ate analyses, even on the number of elements considered. However, this is rarely articulated clearly in publications, making it less obvious to archaeologists. In this short paper, we re- examine compositional data from a collection of bricks, tiles and ceramics from Hill Hall, near Epping in Essex, England, as a case study to show how the method of data exploration used and the number of elements considered in multivariate analyses of compositional data can affect the sorting of ceramic samples into chemical groups. We compare bivariate data splitting (BDS) with principal component analysis (PCA) and centered log ratio-principal component analysis (CLR-PCA) of different unstandardized data formats [original concen- tration data and logarithmically transformed (i.e. log10 data)], using different numbers of elements. We confirm that PCA, in its various forms, is quite sensitive to the numbers and types of elements used in data analysis.
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 | 0.403 | 0.656 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".