The Reliability of Using Surface Data for Seriation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Archaeological sites are often dated through seriation analysis of artifacts found on the site's surface. This relative dating method remains common despite the widespread availability of absolute dating methods because it is fast and cost-effective compared to scientific dating methods such as radiocarbon dating. Surface seriation is especially important for regional survey studies that involve a large number of sites and little to no excavation. In this context it is important to ask: are surface assemblages as reliable an indicator of the age of a site as determined through excavation? This unique study addresses this question using data from seven sites in the Virú Valley on the north coast of Peru. Surface assemblages are compared with excavated ones using the G-test statistic. It is found that surface assemblages do not closely resemble excavated ones in a statistically significant sense. Nevertheless, the relative date of surface assemblages typically resembles the relative date of excavated assemblages. Caution is urged when dating surface assemblages purely through seriation because the surface may not actually be representative of excavated assemblages.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it