MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041283728 · doi:10.1002/arp.225

HLEM and magnetic surveys: examples from the Orkhun Valley, Mongolia

2004· article· en· W2041283728 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeological Prospection · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAssociation of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies
KeywordsFilter (signal processing)Magnetic surveyPoint (geometry)Data processingSimple (philosophy)GeologyRemote sensingComputer scienceGeographyGeodesyGeophysicsMagnetic anomalyComputer visionMathematicsDatabaseGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Archeologically valuable items and remains that have, somehow, been buried or removed from their original places are the subject of geophysical surveys. Magnetic and horizontal loop electromagnetic (HLEM) methods have been used to locate and limit anomalous regions over large areas. Magnetic data are presented here without applying any modelling process other than simple cleaning of outlines. Median filter and three‐point averaging have been applied to the HLEM data and ratios of measurements parallel and perpendicular to survey lines are presented as maps of the survey area. Results show that different processing techniques produce helpful information, validating the use of different methods over ancient monument areas in Mongolia. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.201 · 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