Dating methods for sediments of caves and rockshelters with examples from the Mediterranean Region
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A wide range of potential dating methods may be applied to archaeological deposits found in caves and rockshelters, depending on the nature of the deposit and age range of the deposit. Organic sediments, including faunal and floral material, can be dated by radiocarbon (AMS and high‐sensitivity beta‐counting). Many karstic features contain speleothems which can be dated with high accuracy by U‐series. Wind‐blown detritus, where it is the dominant constituent of the cave deposits, can be dated by luminescence (TL, OSL, or IRSL), taking care to avoid material fallen into the deposits from the shelter/cave walls. Fireplaces contain burned rocks (including stone artifacts) which can be dated by TL. Enamel from the teeth of mammals is present in most sites, representing either animal residents of the shelter, or residues from food brought to the shelter by human residents. Electron spin resonance (ESR) dating of enamel is applicable over a wide time range, with high accuracy and reasonable precision where uranium accumulation in teeth is low, but with lower precision where uranium content in teeth is high. In general, multiple dating methods applied to a site may resolve ambiguities arising from uncertain model assumptions in some dating methods. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it