MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2646191358 · doi:10.5539/res.v9n3p36

Analyzing Settlement Patterns of Bronze Age Sites at Bostan Abad, according Regional Archaeological Survey

2017· article· en· W2646191358 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Velayati Rahim, Hamid Khanali

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronze AgeArchaeologyHuman settlementTypologySettlement (finance)BronzeGeographyMiddle Stone AgePrehistoryAncient historyHistoryCave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Archaeological surveys always present deep information about history of any given geographical area to archaeologists. Archaeologists have surveyed many Iranian regional areas, however, Bostan Abad, Eastern Azerbaijan, is among regions rarely archaeologically investigated. Present paper involves in analyzing settlement patterns and typology of Bronze Age of Bostan Abad according archaeological surveys at 1391 and 1392. Accordingly, some 36 Bronze Age sites identified, with two sites of Early Bronze Age, while the other remains date to Middle and Late Bronze Ages. It should be noted that archaeological survey based on surficial collected data, which make distinguishing Middle and Late Bronze Age a hard task. Conclusions signify from two aspects: from one hand, one should point to a geographical key role in locating settlements, on the other hand, typology of Potteries indicate inter regional communications, and strategic location of Bostan Abad. This zone is one of the most important hallways between Central Plateau of Iran and Northwest of Iran; however, regional investigations and connective role of the region and expansion of various cultures could reveal significant implications.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.196 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207