Byzantine Complex of the First Half of the 13th Century in the Port of Sugdea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Studying the material culture of provincial-Byzantine cities of the Eastern Taurica on the eve of their capture by the Golden Horde troops in the second quarter of the 13th century is one of the current problems of the Byzantine archaeology of the peninsula. The purpose of the work is to clarify the features of the methods of house-building, basic elements of ceramic complexes, other components of the material culture of Sugdea objects. The archaeological context and dating of the complex allowing connecting them with the events in the history of the city known on written sources are essentially important. Methods. The method of the detailed comparative analysis of all components of the published archaeological complex is the basis for the work. The author draws the conclusion about the features of the provincial-Byzantine culture of the East Crimea during the considered period on the basis of the comparison to other synchronous complexes of Sugdea. Analysis. The researcher considers all elements of the specific archaeological complex including, first of all, methods of house-building, the stratigraphy situation, the structure of ceramics and individual finds. Results. As a result of the detailed consideration of all elements of the published complex and the comparative analysis it is possible to draw the conclusion that the material culture of this city is one of the versions of the provincial-Byzantine culture of the peninsula of the first half of the 13th century. It is formed in the early 13th century and stops the existence already in the second quarter of this century. Key words: port of Sugdea, first half of the 13th century, provincial-Byzantine culture, stratigraphy, chronology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".