MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2428263786

The archaeological examination of watercraft abandonment in Australia: A retrospective

2005· article· en· W2428263786 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nathan Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, The · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMaritime and Coastal Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatercraftArchaeologyAbandonment (legal)HistoryWatsonMaritime archaeologyExcavationGeographyGeologyOceanographyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The remnants of deliberately discarded watercraft have been a subject of maritime historical and archaeological enquiry for some time. Studies of ships re-utilised as ancient boat burials (such as the Snape Boat), votive offerings (the Cheops ship), or transformed into foundations, and many types of alternate structures (Ronson Ship) and buildings (for example, Niantic and Inconstant) are well known in maritime archaeological literature (see for instance, Kadry, 1986; Delgado, 1979, 1997; Reiss, 1997; O'Keefe, 1999, 2001). So too, the study of collections of vessels abandoned by their owners at the conclusion of their useful lives are noted in many instances; from the discovery of abandoned 18th century bateaux in Quebec, Canada (La Roche, 1987) and huge collections of vessels in Maryland, USA (Shomette, 1994, 1996), to studies of discarded hulks in the United Kingdom (Watson, 1993: 7; Wood, 1996: 6-7; Dobson, 1997: 3; Emery, 1997: 4; Milne, et al., 1998).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, TheSame topicMaritime and Coastal ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207