Igneous Rock Associations 12. A Geologist’s Look at Archaeological Ceramics and Glass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".