Rock Art and the Côa Valley Archaeological Park: A Case Study in the Preservation of Portugal’s Prehistoric Rupestral Heritage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Nelson Rebanda—the archaeologist working for the electricity company (EDP) that was building a dam in the Côa river—probably discovered the first Côa Valley engraved surface with Palaeolithic motifs (the now well-known Rock 1 of Canada do Inferno) in November 1991, the find was only revealed to the public in November 1994 (Jorge 1995; Rebanda 1995). Subsequently, the first reports on ‘important archaeological finds in the Côa Valley’ started to appear in the newspapers. The Canada do Inferno engravings were located upstream and very near to the construction site of the Côa dam. The construction work advanced at a good pace and the completion of the dam would irremediably destroy the engravings. The public revelation of the find instantly triggered a huge controversy since the first specialists to visit the site immediately classified the engravings as being of Palaeolithic style. As a result of the media attention on the Côa and right after the broadcast of the first TV reports, a pilgrimage to the Côa Valley rock-art surfaces began. Reacting to the first news on an affair that was starting to be known as ‘the Côa scandal’, IPPAR (the state body that, at the time, was in charge of managing archaeology in Portugal) created, at the end of November 1994, a committee to follow the archaeological rescue work being done in the Côa. Nevertheless, and considering the serious problem created by the construction of the dam (and the construction work continued), it rapidly became evident that IPPAR was gradually losing control over the situation as it shifted to the public domain. In December 1994, IPPAR asked UNESCO for an expert opinion to challenge the efforts of EDP (the Portuguese Power Company responsible for the construction of the dam and at the time totally state owned) to demonstrate that the Côa findings were not of Palaeolithic chronology. Throughout 1995, this would be a crucial issue since some defended the position that, if the engravings were not Palaeolithic, their patrimonial value would not be very important and, therefore, the dam could be built!
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".