From conflict archaeology to archaeologies of conflict: remote survey in Kandahar, Afghanistan
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging from research with the Afghan Heritage Mapping Partnership, a multi-year project using satellite imagery to detect, record and manage archaeological heritage, this paper examines the potentials of remote-sensing to not only monitor archaeological material culture, but also contemporary materiality as it is violently (re)assembled through conflict. Through systematic remote-sensed archaeological survey using diachronic imagery in Kandahar, Afghanistan, this work expands archaeological understanding of an under-surveyed region while exploring the impact of the region’s expansive military infrastructural footprint on cultural heritage. Further, this research considers the long history of landscapes of control and successive military occupations. Remote survey allows for continued generation of archaeological data during conflict, thereby enabling more thorough heritage management. Finally, this survey demonstrates that, although remote aerial technologies have been criticized as tools of violence, surveillance and control, satellite imagery can be used analytically to generate new understandings of and challenges to military infrastructural reach.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it