Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article considers the results of systematization and the analysis of funeral constructions of early medieval Turks investigated in Mongolia. The author uses all known materials of the excavation which have being carried out by the Mongolian and foreign archaeologists since the second quarter of the 20 century up to the present. Emphasis is made on features of the land and intra sepulchral constructions recorded during studying of necropolises in the 2nd half of I thousand. The author discusses the problems of interpretation of inlet graves, and also burials in a grave niche. Difficulties of interpretation of the non-numerous rocky objects, on a number of indicators correlated to the culture of early medieval Turks are shown. The main approach used in the article is a comparative analysis of the funeral complexes in the territory of Mongolia with more numerous materials of research in Altai-Sayan region.Taking into account the revealed character of funeral constructions, and also the specifics of ritual and accompanying tools which are not presented in the article, there are all grounds to consider burials of early medieval Turks of Mongolia and the Altai-Sayan region within one community. It could be related to “east” Turkic peoples, known by written sources. Small number of such sites in Mongolia, considering the number of the objects investigated in the Altai Mountain, Tuva and Minusinsk Depression, can be explained with the lack of purposeful excavation of Turkic burials and low degree of study of the designated territory in general.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".