MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163816321

Geophysical Survey of the Dorset Palaeoeskimo Site of Point Riche

2005· article· en· W2163816321 on OpenAlex
Edward Eastaugh, Jeremy Taylor

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNewfoundland and Labrador Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeophysical surveyExcavationGeophysicsProspectionGeologyArchaeologyNatural (archaeology)Earth materialsGeophysical prospectingRange (aeronautics)GeographyEngineeringGeotechnical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

THIS PAPER PRESENTS the results of geophysical survey (geoprospection) conducted during the summer of 2001 at the Dorset Palaeoeskimo site (EeBi-20) at Point Riche, Newfoundland (Figure 1). This work illustrates the capabilities of two of the most common geophysical techniques used in archaeology: magnetometry and resistivity, as applied to the characterization of semi-subterranean dwellings. Geophysical survey encompasses a range of scientific techniques developed in the earth sciences for subsurface prospection and mapping. Geophysical techniques measure a variety of physical properties of the earth and can be divided into two distinct types: passive and active (Reynolds 1997). Passive methods measure variations in the natural fields of the earth, for example its gravitational or magnetic fields. Active methods transmit energy into the ground in the form of a signal or current. As this energy encounters different subsurface materials it is modified depending upon the physical characteristics of the material encountered, and the variation recorded. Over the last 40 years, many of these geophysical techniques have been adapted by archaeologists for the exploration and investigation of archaeological sites. These techniques provide a rapid and non-invasive method for the identification of cultural features, as opposed to more traditional archaeological survey methods, such as test pitting. Archaeological sites can therefore, in appropriate circumstances, be identified and mapped without the need for costly excavation, thus saving both time and money whilst leaving the archaeological resource intact. Geophysical techniques can also provide information on the preservation potential of

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.241 · 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