MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897587618 · doi:10.23914/ap.v8i2.166

An Empty Graveyard: The Victims of the 1946 AOA DC-4 Crash, Their Final Resting Place, and Dark Tourism

2018· article· en· W2897587618 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa M. Daly

Bibliographic record

VenueAP Online Journal in Public Archaeology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashTragedy (event)AdventurePilgrimageSummitHistoryTourismGreat RiftArchaeologyArtGeographyArt historyCartographyLiteratureComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2013, archaeologists succeeded in locating a plane crash that had been presumed buried based on local stories. The aircraft had crashed into a steep hill, subsequently known as Crash Hill. On the summit is a deteriorated memorial which resembles a cemetery, marking the thirty-nine people who died in the 1946 tragedy. This memorial has been a spot of pilgrimage for family and an attraction for adventure seekers. This draw to dark tourism sites is not uncommon but since archaeologists shared their finds with the public through social and local media, many of those visitors are drawn to the crash site instead of the memorial. This is a problem as there are possibly mass graves at the crash site, and visitation can potentially disturb those remains. This article argues for caution when discussing finds publically and for the repair and restoration of the memorial at the top of the hill to fill the want to visit a site of tragedy without disturbing the actual crash site.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAP Online Journal in Public ArchaeologySame topicArchaeological Research and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207