Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is known that the grid pattern characterizing the city layout of Teotihuacan incorporates two slightly different groups of alignments, skewed approximately 15.5° and 16.5° clockwise from cardinal directions. I argue that these alignments were dictated by deliberate and astronomically functional orientations of the Pyramid of the Sun and the Ciudadela. The two structures recorded sunrises and sunsets on two different sets of dates, allowing the use of an observational calendar composed of intervals that included multiples of 20 days and a 260-day period. The evidence presented suggests also that the location of the Sun Pyramid was not determined by the cave that is now underneath the structure and is probably human-made, but rather by a combination of astronomical and topographic criteria: the place allowed the temple built there to be oriented both to sunrises and sunsets on significant dates and, in the perpendicular direction, to Cerro Gordo to the north; furthermore, sunrises on the so-called quarter-days of the year could be observed from the same spot over a prominent mountain on the eastern horizon. The dates corresponding to the Teotihuacan alignments are attested also at other central Mexican archaeological sites and must have been employed, primarily, for scheduling agricultural and associated ritual activities in the yearly cycle.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".