MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326630290 · doi:10.2307/40035886

Detection Functions for Archaeological Survey

2006· article· en· W2326630290 on OpenAlex
Edward B. Banning, Alicia L. Hawkins, Sarah T. Stewart

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Antiquity · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtifact (error)VisibilityTransectRange (aeronautics)ProspectingAerial surveyGeographyComputer scienceSurvey methodologyDistribution (mathematics)StatisticsArchaeologyGeologyRemote sensingArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineeringMeteorologyMining engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of several experiments to investigate how the detection functions of surveyors vary for different artifact types on surfaces with differing visibility when visual surface inspection (“fieldwalking”) is the survey method. As prospecting theory predicts, successful detection declines exponentially with distance away from transects and detection as a function of search time displays diminishing returns. However, these functions vary by visibility, artifact type, and other factors. The incidence of false targets–incorrect identifications of artifacts–has somewhat more impact at greater range but has little or no relationship with search time. Our results provide a rationale for selection of transect intervals and distribution of survey effort, and also facilitate evaluation of survey results, allowing more realistic estimates of how much a survey missed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.143 · 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