MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057058496 · doi:10.1002/gea.10043

The source of raw materials for Roman pottery from Leptiminus, Tunisia

2002· article· en· W2057058496 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara L. Sherriff, Patricia Court, Shannon Johnston, Lea Stirling

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoarchaeology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMaritime and Coastal Archaeology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPotteryArchaeologyGeologyPetrographyKilnExcavationGeochemistryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Leptiminus, a Roman port city on the west coast of Tunisia, North Africa, exported olive oil and a garum fish paste to Rome. Excavations have uncovered many facilities including kilns and a potter's workshop, indicating an extensive ceramic industry. The vessels, manufactured at Leptiminus, included African red‐slip fineware, coarseware, and amphorae. A petrographic study of pottery sherds showed them to contain very similar temper, rounded aeolian sand grains and limestone, but varying in proportions to produce different textures. An investigation of the source of raw materials for the pottery found three distinct types of clay within a 50 km radius of Leptiminus: grey Miocene, brown Pliocene, and green Late Pliocene clay. Statistical analysis of trace element compositions, using induced neutron activation, of clays and sherds showed that the Pliocene brown clay was used to create all types of pottery. The specific clay horizon, used in Roman times, has apparently been removed by quarrying. However, a lateral continuation of this bed was found 7 m beneath the Leptiminus site 290. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoarchaeologySame topicMaritime and Coastal ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207