MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152770379 · doi:10.1111/arcm.12025

A Speleothem Record of Early <scp>B</scp>ritish and <scp>R</scp>oman Mining at <scp>C</scp>harterhouse, <scp>M</scp>endip, <scp>E</scp>ngland

2013· article· en· W2152770379 on OpenAlexaff
Donald A. McFarlane, Johannes Lundberg, Héctor Neff

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeometry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersUniversity of Bristol
KeywordsSpeleothemTransectGeologyArchaeologyArchaeological recordTrace elementGeographyPhysical geographyGeochemistryCaveOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The laser ablation ICP–MS transect of a speleothem from GB Cave, close to Charterhouse, Mendip Hills, UK, records Pb variations over the past 5 ka. The speleothem record correlates well with the known historical record of lead mining in the district, the principal features of which include: the Roman lead mining peak; the Dark Ages cessation; gradual, episodic revival up to the late 16th century peak; the 17th century collapse and subsequent recovery; and the final short‐lived burst at the end of the 19th century. This correlation supports the assumption that the pre‐Roman lead record also derives from local mining. Thus, this record is the first example of quantifying ancient human mining activity through trace element signature of a speleothem. This record also provides the first solid evidence of significant pre‐Roman mining activity in the Charterhouse region, and the first solid dating of that activity. This pre‐Roman mining can be divided into three main peaks dated to 1800–1500 bc, 1100–800 bc and 350–0 bc.

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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations27
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeometrySame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207