Non‐destructive research in the surroundings of the Roman Fort Tibiscum (today Romania)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Roman military fort Tibiscum which existed from the beginning of the second up to the third quarter of the third century ad was manned by various auxiliary units, including Syrian Palmyrenians and Germanic Vindelici. Its irregular shape and relatively big surface, usual for the forts of that type, as well as not having entirely clear settlement structures visible on both sides of the Timiş River drew attention of many scholars. The non‐destructive research project carried out in 2014–2016 allowed to reassess the ancient landscape around the fort. Although the site was excavated for almost 100 years, the rural hinterland of Tibiscum has never been investigated systematically. An integrated archaeological prospection method combined with the use of modern surveying tools resulted in establishing the accurate position of the known extramural remains and the location of a dozen of new sites and features within the radius of ca 3 km around the fort. The results of the surveys compared with the old maps and previous excavations led to the new conclusions concerning the topography of Roman Tibiscum and the development of the civilian settlement in its vicinity. The analysis of acquired archaeological data compared with historical sources give assumptions to the question of the existence of a separate town on the east side of the Timiş River which was granted municipal status by the end of the second century ad . The authors of the present article are rather willing to believe that it was the extramural settlement ( vicus ), located on the west bank of Timiş, which was granted municipal rights, probably at the end of the second or at the beginning of the third century ad .
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".