MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004848631 · doi:10.1080/00934690.2020.1717857

Transregional Perspectives: Characterizing Obsidian Consumption at Early Chalcolithic Ein el-Jarba (N. Israel)

2020· article· es· W3004848631 on OpenAlexaff
Tristan Carter, Kathryn Campeau, Katharina Streit

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Field Archaeology · 2020
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChalcolithicWadiArchaeologyContext (archaeology)GeographyConsumption (sociology)Ancient historyHistoryBronze AgeArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper details the characterization of 48 obsidian artifacts from Ein el-Jarba, an Early Chalcolithic site of the southern Levantine Wadi Rabah culture (6th millennium cal b.c.). By melding sourcing data from energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy with the artifacts’ techno-typological specifics, we contrast Ein el-Jarba’s obsidian consumption practices with those of broadly contemporary and earlier communities in the context of the period’s emergent transregional character. The results attest to a major reconfiguration of long-term traditions, with well-known Cappadocian and Lake Van region source materials now supplemented by obsidian from the Caucasus, such material’s most southerly distribution. These diverse resources are believed to have circulated within the same exchange networks, mediated by communities of the Halaf culture to the north. Most of Ein el-Jarba’s obsidian was in the form of pressure blades from a common technical tradition, the implements likely procured ready-made from the well-connected site of Hagoshrim.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Field ArchaeologySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207