MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010603310 · doi:10.1515/opar-2020-0002

On the Lookout: Directional Visibility Cones and Defense in the Nebo Region, West-Central Jordan

2020· article· en· W3010603310 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Archaeology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Community College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisibilityHuman settlementPlateau (mathematics)GeographyAncient historyArchaeologyHistoryMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article uses directional visibility analysis to assess the defensibility of two Iron Age (9th–8th cent. BCE) sites from the Nebo region of west-central Jordan: the fortified town of Khirbat al-Mukhayyat and its adjacent watchtower at Rujm al-Mukhayyat. Directional visibility cones illustrate how the improved viewsheds afforded by the watchtower at Rujm al-Mukhayyat were needed to establish line of sight between Khirbat al-Mukhayyat and other settlements located higher up on the Transjordanian plateau. Without the addition of the watchtower, Khirbat al-Mukhayyat would have been cut off from direct communication with nearby towns at Hesban and Ma’in. Despite the increased visibility provided by the watchtower at Rujm al-Mukhayyat, Khirbat al-Mukhayyat retained limited capacity to monitor movement to the south in the vicinity of Ma’in. Further, it could not establish direct visual contact with the important urban centre at Madaba to the southeast. These findings may have implications for understanding the military strategy adopted by the Moabite king Mesha in his mid-9th century BCE campaign against the Town of Nebo, identified with Khirbat al-Mukhayyat.

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)0.001
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen ArchaeologySame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207