MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565367973 · doi:10.3213/2191-5784-10291

Did Middle Stone Age Khargan Peoples Leave Structural Features? ‘Site J’, The Forgotten Settlement of the ‘Empty Desert’, Kharga Oasis, Egypt: 1933 and 2011

2016· article· en· W2565367973 on OpenAlexaff
Mary M. A. McDonald, Marcia F. Wiseman, Maxine R. Kleindienst, Jennifer Smith, Nicholas Taylor, Andrew J. Wreschnig, Anne R. Skinner, Bonnie A.B. Blackwell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of African Archaeology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of KansasYale University
KeywordsPrehistoryArchaeologyPleistoceneGeographyDesert (philosophy)Settlement (finance)Middle Stone AgeStone tool

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

G. Caton-Thompson and E. W. Gardner designated new Pleistocene cultural units at Kharga Oasis in the 1930’s: both were originally termed ‘pre-Sebilian’, but were later locally named the ‘Levalloiso-Khargan’ and ‘Khargan’ industries. High on the Bulaq scarp face, a puzzling cluster of stone ‘alignments’ was discovered in 1931–32, with a reported, but discounted, association with ‘Levalloiso-Khargan’ artefacts. Gardner excavated some features in 1933. Members of the Kharga Oasis Prehistory Project relocated ‘Site J’ in January 2011, and verified the reported Khargan associations with the features. In 2008, the project found structural features associated with Khargan artefacts in the northern Gebel Yebsa survey area, confirming earlier finds in the southern oases of Kurkur and Dungul. Evidence there, and that found in Kharga and Dakhleh oases, is now designated as the Khargan Complex. The associated built stone features of the included cultural units appear to be unique in Late Pleistocene Africa, especially at Bulaq.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of African ArchaeologySame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207