MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114747200 · doi:10.23858/fah33.2020.012

Between Technical-cultural Innovation by the Teutonic Order and Traditional Blacksmith Craftsmanship On the Margin of the Discovery of the 13th-century Spur with Hinged Sides from Starogród, Chełmno Distric

2020· article· en· W3114747200 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maciej Majewski

Bibliographic record

VenueFasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Archaeological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpurQuarter (Canadian coin)HingeArtifact (error)Interpretation (philosophy)ExcavationOrder (exchange)HistorySubject (documents)GeologyArchaeologyAncient historyPaleontologyPhilosophyEngineeringComputer scienceLinguisticsMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article starts with the description of a rare spur with hinged arms from Starogród in Culm Land, discovered during an excavation in 2018. The artifact is dated to the 2nd quarter of the 13th century and comes from the area of the probable first location of Chełmno. The main aim of the study is to describe and discuss the existing theories regarding the interpretation of this form of spurs. There are three main theories on the subject. The most probable one is that the arms with hinges were to serve for easier fixing of spurs on heavy boots and those with large decorations, such as belts or buckles. Due to the very early dating of the oldest spurs of this type, it should rather be said that spurs with hinges were used wherever it was found that it would facilitate their mounting on the leg. In none of the periods of occurrence, were these forms dominant but merely co-existed with those with rigid arms

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

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 studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.131 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFasciculi Archaeologiae HistoricaeSame topicHistorical and Archaeological StudiesFrench-language works237,207