Interdisciplinary survey in Messenia, Southwest Peloponnese, Greece
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The survey of Messenia by the University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition (UMME) was recently followed by the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP). Despite improvements in survey methodology, problems remain, particularly with the interpretation of field data and with extrapolation, especially when this is made based on survey results alone, without excavation. In addition, the work of the archaeologists has not yet been fully integrated with that of the earth scientists. Some examples are given of the difficulties encountered in this survey, especially concerning retrodictions (predictions about the past) of ancient settlement patterns and numbers. Suggestions are made here for further survey and selective excavation, especially in eastern Messenia, where fieldwork has been far less extensive than in western Messenia. More fieldwork is needed to determine the pattern of geomorphic changes in the region, especially in relation to the varying degrees of visibility and/or preservation of the ancient sites. Meanwhile, increased recent human activity is rapidly destroying or endangering those remains that have hitherto survived, so that survey is often de facto of a rescue nature.© 2007 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".