MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LA CERÁMICA DEL CENTRO ADMINISTRATIVO INCA DE TAMBO VIEJO

2014· article· es· W2744116586 on OpenAlexaff
Lidio M. Valdéz, Dorothy Menzel, Francis A. Riddell

Bibliographic record

VenueArqueología y Sociedad · 2014
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLatin American history and culture
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En este artículo presentamos los resultados del análisis de la cerámica proveniente del sitio Inca de Tambo Viejo, del valle de Acarí. Entre otros, este estudio revela que a la llegada Inca hacia Acarí había un estilo de cerámica local que ya recibía influencia de los estilos de los valles adyacentes del norte. Dicho acercamiento estilístico denota que las varias poblaciones de la región mantenían contacto. Con la presencia Inca, el estilo local de Acarí continuó recibiendo influencias de los valles norteños, pero a su vez empezó a incorporar nue-vos elementos decorativos, esta vez de origen Inca. Motivos selectos Inca, una vez modificados, fueron incor-porados al estilo local. Esta evidencia permite observar que la conquista Inca del valle de Acarí no representó la paralización total del estilo local y la sustitución por el estilo Inca; por el contrario, el estilo local sobrevivió a tal extremo que los elementos propiamente Inca son raros en Tambo Viejo. Esto posiblemente refleja la incorporación pacífica del valle al dominio Inca. El hecho que la ocupación Inca duró corto tiempo fue otro factor que no permitió la asimilación completa de las formas culturales locales con raíces más profundas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArqueología y SociedadSame topicLatin American history and cultureFrench-language works237,207