MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966047609 · doi:10.1111/arcm.12497

Justification for reassessing elemental analysis data of ceramics, sediments and lithics using rare earth element concentrations and ratios

2019· article· en· W2966047609 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeometry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenThornhill Medical (Canada)McMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertaintySuspectSedimentArchaeologyData qualityProcess (computing)Data collectionGeologyCeramicQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceEarth scienceMining engineeringMineralogyHistoryEngineeringMaterials sciencePaleontologyMetallurgyStatisticsPolitical scienceMathematicsLawOperations managementPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mensuration of multi‐elemental concentrations from assorted archaeological materials has always required great care and attention to detail to ensure good‐quality data and their ensuing interpretations. Although most suspect data were generated before the wide use of computers, error‐free data are not still a certainty. This paper presents the geochemical rationale for a proposed chemical data‐assessment process, using a globally dispersed collection of ceramic, sediment and lithic data. It is argued that this process can allow archaeologists and archaeometrists to investigate systematically older and current data sets and, if need be, alter them to the reliable values they were originally intended to include.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.256 · 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