Observations and questions on gold artefacts from underwater excavations
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
In the present paper, we will study examples of settlement excavations that can sometimes reveal abundant gold material. These -underwater excavations took place in Alexandria and Aboukir Bay, Egypt, where we found numerous gold or gold-plated objects. Of these, some objects provide us with information about the trade routes used in those times, and others show us that refinement existed even during the Byzantine period. Some objects tell us fabulous stories, while others attest a high mastery of the available technology.Through specific examples, we will approach the scientific, aesthetic, historical and technological aspects pertaining to these gold objects.While most of these gold objects, jewellery and coins, have been studied before, and the results published elsewhere, considering the number of excavated objects, it is typically the less spectacular ones or the ones that were too difficult to interpret that have been neglected.Being an archaeologist specialised in the restoration of metal, I am thus not a metallurgist, a technologist, or even a numismatist, nor a historian specialised in the production or trade of gold objects. However, on the boat, underwater, or in the land laboratory, many questions concerning these archaeological objects deserve attention.With the help of three Case studies, we will see that some problems related to these objects have come up, and that a close collaboration with various gold artefact specialists appears necessary in order to try to solve these uncertainties.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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