MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280387503 · doi:10.4000/palethnologie.4500

Dating Rock Art: Two New Methods for Pictographs and Petroglyphs

2013· article· en· W2280387503 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bryan C. Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenuePalethnologie · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRock artGeologyArchaeologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two new methods for dating rock art with underlying soil have been tested under ten pictographs and five petroglyphs in seven regions of Canada, Mexico and the United States. Both assume pigment particles or paint droplets or hammerstone chips and the dust they created fell to the feet of the artist. This is like chalk dust at a blackboard, droplets while painting, or marble chips and dust in sculpting. Both require finding the soil level with this material and AMS dating its organic matter. ...

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalethnologieSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207