Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este articulo se presentan distintas experiencias de preservacion y conservacion in situ de yacimientos arqueologicos subacuaticos: proteccion con sacos de arena, redes, enrejados, posidonia natural o artificial, tumulos artificiales o estructuras metalicas. Tras revisar las realizadas en distintos paises (Australia, Holanda, Sri Lanka, Espana), se hace especial hincapie en las llevadas a cabo por nuestro museo (barcos de epoca fenicia en Mazarron y barco romano en profundidad). A continuacion se exponen varias iniciativas de puesta en valor de yacimientos subacuaticos, en forma de itinerarios, parques arqueologicos o museos. Se trata de algunas experiencias desarrolladas en puertos y ciudades antiguas sumergidas o pecios romanos, modernos y contemporaneos en algunos paises (Israel, Egipto, Croacia, Italia, Espana, Portugal, Canada, EE.UU, Iberoamerica, Australia, etc.). Por ultimo, se insiste en la sensibilizacion del publico como una importante herramienta para la conservacion in situ de yacimientos subacuaticos.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".