New methodologies to analyze and study the Hellenistic-Roman quarter in Agrigento
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Agrigento: insula III Project began in 2016 thanks to an agreement between the Parco Archeologico e Paesaggistico Valle dei Templi di Agrigento and DiSCi - Bologna University; it aims to document an entire sector of the Hellenistic-Roman quarter, in a three-year period. The main goal is to start a systematic study of private housing from the Archaic period to Late Antiquity and, at the same time, provide a critical understanding of the town planning scheme in this part of the town, which still lacks a modern archaeological and topographical documentation. The interpretation of the previous documentation is the starting point, along with new mapping with laser scanning and a systematic campaign of geophysical investigations to obtain a BIM. As the Bologna University tradition teaches, modern technologies can answer precise historical and archaeological questions: what are the primary phases of the town map? Which one is the starting module of each lot and what are the changes in different ages? Is it possible to reconstruct the original architecture of Hellenistic houses? What is the relationship between this quarter and the rest of the town? The integration of traditional investigational techniques with more recent ones is the methodological assumption of the project, in order to solve the analysis of the complex stratigraphy of the setting, which was inhabited for at least a millennium, from the Archaic to the Middle Ages.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".