Middle-Don Neolithic culture: problems of selection, chronology and periodization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper deals with the main results of the Middle-Don Neolithic culture study. The contribution of A.T. Sinyuk is noted. The paper also contains some evolution of his views on the content of the early stage of the culture. So, the first periodization, done in 1971 as a result of Universitetskaya III site study, was then adjusted, especially after the excavations of Monastyrskaya I site. The culture chronology according to modern concepts fits into the IV-V millennium BC. The origin of the Middle-Don culture is debatable. New absolute dating allows us to consider the early stage in the first half of the VI - third quarter of the VI millennium BC and associate it with the first monuments with stroke ceramics and plate stone inventory. The author notes that there was an interaction of the Middle Don population with the Karamyshevsky population at the early stage. During the last quarter of the VI - first quarter of V millennium BC stroke-ornamented-comb ware spread, ornament completely filled the outer surface of the vessels. Late stage - second quarter V - end V millennium BC, the syncretic types were formed. Vestigial stage - the beginning of IV millennium BC, there was an end of Middle-Don traditions, they were rare in the Rybnoozersky type of ceramics.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".