MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948798982 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.9231

Close-Range Photogrammetry for Documenting and Enhancing Thamudic Rock Art and Epigraphy

2016· article· en· W2948798982 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephanie Normand

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotogrammetryEpigraphyFrontierArchaeologyArchaeological recordDiversity (politics)HistoryComputer scienceGeographyRemote sensingAncient historySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The eastern frontier of Roman Empire was ethnically and culturally diverse. Yet despite the abundance of evidence for such diversity, we know relatively little about the peoples who populated the Roman frontier. A good case in point is the Thamudic people of the Hisma desert in modern day southern Jordan. The written historical record provides only two references from the classical period, along with a handful from the later Islamic period, all of which are contradictory. What is more, the sources give virtually no hints about their way of life. The archeological record is not much more revealing. In fact, the only tangible traces we have of these people are the vast numbers of inscriptions and petroglyphs they left behind. These inscriptions, however, can often be difficult to study due to centuries of weathering and vandalism, both ancient and modern. A way to document and enhance this material in a quick and accurate way in harsh, remote environments is urgently needed. Close-range photogrammetry with digital SLR cameras provides the ideal solution. Three-dimensional data from photogrammetry is quick to capture in the field, extremely accurate and requires nothing other than a consumer camera and software for post-processing. Using software adapted from the mining industry we can use a process known as depth-mapping to enhance even extremely shallow incisions and to reveal texts that have been damaged, or even intentionally erased. By doing so, we can gain a better understanding of the lives of these people on the Roman frontier.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicArchaeological Research and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207