Image-based search and retrieval for biface artefacts using features capturing archaeologically significant characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archaeologists are currently producing huge numbers of digitized photographs to record and preserve artefact finds. These images are used to identify and categorize artefacts and reason about connections between artefacts and perform outreach to the public. However, finding specific types of images within collections remains a major challenge. Often, the metadata associated with images is sparse or is inconsistent. This makes keyword-based exploratory search difficult, leaving researchers to rely on serendipity and slowing down the research process. We present an image-based retrieval system that addresses this problem for biface artefacts. In order to identify artefact characteristics that need to be captured by image features, we conducted a contextual inquiry study with experts in bifaces. We then devised several descriptors for matching images of bifaces with similar artefacts. We evaluated the performance of these descriptors using measures that specifically look at the differences between the sets of images returned by the search system using different descriptors. Through this nuanced approach, we have provided a comprehensive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the different descriptors and identified implications for design in the search systems for archaeology.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".