MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060045194 · doi:10.1002/gea.1017

Electron spin resonance (ESR) and thermal ionization mass spectrometric (TIMS) <sup>230</sup>Th/<sup>234</sup>U dating of teeth in Middle Paleolithic layers at Amud Cave, Israel

2001· article· en· W2060045194 on OpenAlexaff
W.J. Rink, Henry P. Schwarcz, H. K. Lee, J. Rees‐Jones, Rivka Rabinovich, Erella Hovers

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoarchaeology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaveRadiometric datingGeologyChemistryArchaeologyPaleontologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Electron spin resonance (ESR) dating and thermal ionization mass spectrometric 230Th/234U dating was conducted on six teeth from the prehistoric site of Amud Cave. By combining the ESR and 230Th/234U analyses, we obtained burial ages for teeth in various layers of the site. Layer B1/6–7, from which the Amud I Neanderthal skeleton was recovered, is dated to 53 ± 8 ka. Layer B2/8, which yielded other important human remains including the Amud 7 skeleton, gives a mean burial age of 61 ± 9 ka. One tooth from the lowest layer (B4) yielded a date of 70 ± 11 ka, but another tooth from this layer gave an 113 ± 18 ka. Despite this discrepancy, these ages agree with previously published TL ages on heated flints for the corresponding layers. This agreement between ESR on tooth enamel and TL on burned flint is also seen at all other sites studied with both methods in Israel. © 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations75
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoarchaeologySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207