MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116917366

Connoly, J. & M. Lake. 2006. Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. – Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom

2006· article· en· W3116917366 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tijl Vereenooghe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Processing and 3D Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchaeologyGeographic information systemHistoryLibrary scienceGeographyComputer scienceCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) have been described as “the most powerful technological tool to be applied in archaeology since the invention of radiocarbon dating” (Westcott & Brandon, 2000: 135), but also as “a technology without intellectual vigour, overly dependent on simple presuppositions about the importance of spatial patterns in a dehumanized artificial space” (cf. Pickles, 1999: 50–52). James Connoly (Trent University, Canada) and Mark Lake (University College London) both have several years’ experience of working with GIS and teaching GIS to archaeology students. In their new book ‘Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology’ (in the ‘Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology’ series), they adopted an approach that is both practical and rigorous. The manual focuses on the kinds of problems that are routinely faced by archaeological users of GIS. Although the authors do not envisage many readers methodically working their way through the manual from start to finish, they have tried to maintain a logical progression such that topics are introduced in roughly the order that they might be encountered in the course of developing and using an archaeological GIS. The authors first introduce some theoretical issues and provide an overview of the ‘first principles’ of GIS: the software and hardware requirements, geodetic and cartographic principles and GIS data models. As the archaeological user is – in general – not an expert in cartography or computer graphics, this first chapter is extremely useful. How do the geographical coordinates we daily use in our archaeological work relate to the position on the Earth’s surface? This is explained in an in–depth description of map projections systems, coordinate transformations and grid systems. The chapter concludes with a good overview of raster and vector data structures and their inherent (dis)advantages. Read more...

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.011
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.015

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Processing and 3D ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207