Abstract: Tree-ring chronology development from house structures in Dorchester, New Brunswick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To conduct dendroarchaeology studies, radial growth patterns of wood of an unknown date must be compared to radial growth patterns of wood with a known date. This simple process becomes problematic when wood from a structure pre-dates the living trees from the same species in the area of the structure. But when an overlap does exist, wood from the structure can signifi cantly strengthen the base chronology for the area. A case study of this type of strengthening is illustrated by a dendroarchaeological study in a historic house located in Dorchester, New Brunswick. A rough history of the lot of land on which the house sits has been recorded since 1786. The original inhabitants of a house currently on the lot as well as the date of construction have remained a mystery. The owners of the structure suspect that it was constructed sometime during the fi rst decade of the 1800s by a man named Cyphrim Kellam. Our dendroarchaeological study indicated that the original building was constructed in the period from 1820 to 1821. By using dendroaraecheology a much clearer history of the original inhabitants of the building and the site was uncovered. The data gained by assigning a time frame to the wood 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".