Geophysical Survey of the Dorset Palaeoeskimo Site of Point Riche
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".