Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a result of the excavations completed in 2001 it became clear that the barrow X is one of elite barrows of Scythia. The crypt was constructed by Bosporan masters, whereas the mound of the barrow was built in Scythian traditions. Barrow X differs from the barrow of Besh-Oba IV which is located on the same necropolis but Scythian traditions are much more brightly expressed in it (Koltukhov, Senatorov 2019). The period of construction of this barrow can be dated to the second half of the 4th century BC. Possibly, the barrow IV precedes the barrow X and belongs to the moment when the Crimean Scythia and the clan «dynasty» of it’s nomarchs only began to form and natives of Steppe Scythia became its first representatives. Barrow X was built later, at that time when connections of new local dynasty with Bosporan kingdom got stronger, and the building of tombs in traditions of Bosporan funeral architecture became a norm in a funeral ceremony of privileged class of Crimean Scythia. We do not know same analogies of the burial chamber of the crypt of barrow X on European and Asian Bosporu, although in proportions are close to the crypt found in 1837 barrow at the city garden of Kerch which looking like the four-sided overlap. It is dated to the last quarter of the 4th century BC but may belong to the earlier time. The crypt of the second Tarasov kurgan on the Asian Bosporus usually dated to the 3rd c. BC but, most likely, it can be dated to the earlier period. In our case, the dating of the crypt is determined by the dating of the mound itself, and it was built no later than the 4th century BC.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".