Liv og død i Hierapolis Norske utgravninger i en hellenistisk–romersk–bysantinsk by i Lilleasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Life and Death at Hierapolis. Norwegian excavations in a Hellenistic–Roman–Byzantine town in Asia Minor From 2007 to 2015 the University of Oslo, invited by The Italian Archaeological Mission at Hierapolis in Phrygia, conducted archaeological research in the North-East Necropolis at Hierapolis. The aim of the project was to document all visible tombs and sarcophagi of the necropolis and excavate selected tomb areas and tombs. The research, including osteological, DNA- and isotope-analyses, investigated the life of the inhabitants over a long period of time (ca. 100–1300 A.C.) with reference to tomb architecture, landscape perception, organization, entrepreneurship, ritual practices, genetic relations and origins, demography, health, sickness, diets, and individual movement patterns. Many of the aims are answered in the article, here shall only be mentioned two important discoveries: cremation has been documented as late as the 5th/6th centuries A.C., in periods of crisis perhaps used to signal pagan opposition to imposed Christian practices; the life conditions in the Roman/Early Byzantine period were much better than in that of the Middle Byzantine period.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".