Getting to the point: making, wayfaring, loss and memory as meaning-making in virtual archaeology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The initial construction of a digital virtual object is the three-dimensional (3D)point. Using the notions of making, wayfaring, meshwork and agency, this discussion focuses on Ingold’s (2011) theoretical approach to these comments as a means for the construction of archaeological knowledge as applied to the 3D virtual landscape. It will demonstrate that 3D points, whether constructed or captured, can be considered to be agents within an actor network, have agency and are subject to memory and loss within the digital archaeological record. By their interconnections they become a mesh work that can exchange and retain unique attributes of materiality. As such, they challenge our notions of meaning-making beyond the rote actions of visualizing within archaeology to a form that is more theoretically deeper. By viewing the construction and capture and the production of 3D or 2D visual data through a different lens but within theoretical archaeological terms, we can begin to understand our role in the creation of meaning within virtual 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".