MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051265517 · doi:10.12789/geocanj.2014.41.034

Igneous Rock Associations 12. A Geologist’s Look at Archaeological Ceramics and Glass

2014· article· fr· W2051265517 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
J. Victor Owen, John D. Greenough

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscience Canada · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeologistArchaeologyHumanitiesArtGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ceramics and glass represent synthetic metamorphic rocks and obsidian, respectively. Consequently, it is not surprising that many archaeologists have collaborated with geologists on projects dealing not only with lithic artifacts, but with ceramic and glass objects as well. This paper presents an overview of these latter two materials from a geological perspective, considering in turn how they are characterized and classified, their ages constrained, provenance and in some instances use determined, and how they were made. SOMMAIRELa céramique et le verre représentent respectivement des roches métamorphiques et l'obsidien synthétiques. En conséquence, il n'est pas étonnant que beaucoup d'archéologues aient collaboré avec des géologues sur des projets traitant non seulement des objets façonnés lithiques, mais également des objets en céramique et en verre. Ce document présente un aperçu de ces derniers deux matériaux d'une perspective géologique, considérant comment ils sont caractérisés et classifiés, leurs âges, provenances et emploies parfois déterminés, et comment elles ont été faites.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscience CanadaSame topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207