Recovery of Missing Persons in Cyprus: Heavy Equipment Methods and Techniques for Complex Well Excavations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This technical note presents the methods and techniques developed by the Bi-communal Forensic Team (BCFT) of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus (CMP) used to excavate and exhume the remains of missing persons, many of whom were buried in deep wells at sites across the island of Cyprus during the conflict period of the 1960s and 1970s. A total of 493 Turkish Cypriots and 1508 Greek Cypriots were officially reported missing by the two communities as a result of the conflict. Since the team's formation, in 2005, the BCFT has excavated 114 wells, resulting in the recovery of 195 missing individuals from 35 of these well excavations. The standard excavation approach used by the BCFT, especially for deep well recovery, consists of "ramp," "pocket," and "pool" components. These excavation features enable CMP archaeologists to excavate deep wells safely and efficiently while simultaneously permitting time for thorough documentation and unimpeded recovery of human remains. The team uses three variants of this approach to cope with the variety of geological, physical, and hydrological contexts faced in Cyprus' wells, including hard and soft landforms, the presence or absence of water, and limitations imposed by surrounding infrastructure. The "terracing", "double-ramp", and "single-ramp" variations are detailed with respect to the environmental contexts which prescribe their use. The BCFT's general procedures for human remains recovery and standard well safety protocols conclude the article.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".