Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Variations in the national format of archaeological employment become most evident at the level of central government. In federal systems such as those of the US, Australia, and Canada, organizations such as these nations' respective national park services (the National Park Service [NPS], Parks Australia, and Parks Canada) are part of a distinct system with many responsibilities, a clear legal remit, central and regional hierarchy, and a large budget. In comparison, centralized but not federalized nations such as the UK have broadly comparable organizations to the NPS, but the responsibilities, legal remit, organizational structure, and budgets involved are much less clear. The situation in the UK is further complicated by the decentralization of government there, particularly the varying responsibilities of the Regional Assemblies of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Notwithstanding the above, central governments around the world employ archaeologists alongside allied heritage professionals, and employment in these organizations can be an extremely rewarding career path for those who choose to pursue it, offering a unique vantage point at the intersection of commercial, academic, and local government archaeology (Figure 25). Central Heritage Organizations in the UK In Britain (i.e., the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), working in central government archaeology primarily (but not exclusively) means working for one of four organizations, known in government parlance as executive nondepartmental public bodies – part of (and primarily, but not exclusively, funded by) the government and operating on its behalf, but effectively run as independent organizations: England : English Heritage (EH), sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS). […]
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.140 | 0.051 |
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".