MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THOUGHTS ON THE UTILITY OF A BIVARIATE‐SPLITTING APPROACH TO OLMEC CERAMIC DATA INTERPRETATION*

2008· article· en· W2124771079 on OpenAlexaff
R. G. V. Hancock, Karen Hancock, J. K. HANCOCK

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeometry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Bivariate analysisData setSet (abstract data type)Bivariate dataMultivariate statisticsArchaeologyGeologyComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recently resolved debate centred on the interpretation of a major set of INAA data that was based on Olmec ceramics from Mexico. In an attempt to answer questions arising from the debate, this paper discusses the effect of numbers of samples chosen for data interpretation. It also presents interpretations of the ceramic data set based on a bivariate data‐splitting approach and compares the results of this with the multivariate analysis approaches employed by the initial publishers of the data.

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)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.172
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.172
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeometrySame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207