MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322300413 · doi:10.3406/bspf.2010.13912

L’abri Sous les Rideaux à Lespugue (Haute-Garonne) et l’Âge du bronze dans les gorges de la Save

2010· article· en· W2322300413 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Rouquerol, Jean-Pierre Cantet

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin de la Société préhistorique française · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronze AgeFoothillsChalcolithicArchaeologyPotteryBronzeExcavationIron AgeGeographyAncient historyHistoryCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The test excavation of the “ Abri Sous-les-Rideaux” (Lespugue, Haute-Garonne) disclosed occupation levels dating between the Middle Ages and the Late Neolithic-Chalcolithic periods. Our purpose is to study the ceramics. Occupation was intense during the different periods of the Bronze Age up to the Final Bronze Age, and continued during the Iron Age. The largest corpus seems however to have belonged to the Early and Middle Bronze Age. The previously unknown «plateau polypode » [ «polypod tray » ] could belong to this period. This corpus belongs to the Pyrenean Early-Middle Bronze Age, as shown by comparisons with pottery from Aquitaine or the piedmont up to the eastern Pyrenees and beyond. Moreover, some decorative similarities are possible with the Noyer group in Quercy. This study proposes the hypothesis of a crossing of influences during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, along a north-south axis as well as east-west. Thus the populations of the Save gorges in the Pyrenean foothills would also have been in contact with the territories of the lower Garonne and Lot river valleys.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin de la Société préhistorique françaiseSame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207