MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120345483 · doi:10.5356/jorient.44.2_3

A Re-examination of Tall-i Bakun A III, the Kur River Basin, Iran

2001· article· en· W3120345483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shogo Kume

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Near East History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPotteryArchaeologyStructural basinUnit (ring theory)CraftChalcolithicGeographySituatedQuarter (Canadian coin)GeologyPaleontologyBronze Age

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tall-i Bakun A is a small Chalcolithic site (ca. the late fifth to early fourth millennium cal. B. C.) situated in the Kur river basin of the southern Zagros. The excavated northern building complex (hereafter Building Unit A) has been recognized as an administrative quarter because of the presence of many impressed clay sealings, while central and southern areas as a pottery workshop.The uncovered material from Building Unit A, however, included not only administration-related objects, but also pottery production tools and various domestic artifacts. Thus it would not make sense to propose a single funcfion for this unit.This article attempts to reconstruct various activities at Building Unit A, using the published in situ objects, and to propose a new interpretation on the nature of the Chalcolithic society at this mound. It suggests that Building Unit A consists of at least six to seven households and this household cluster is stratified by some craft and administrative activities. Although we have little information about central and southern excavated areas, three to five household clusters of the same scale may also have existed within the site. The overall evidence seems to indicate that the differentiation of labor occurred within the household cluster rather than between them.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in JapanSame topicAncient Near East HistoryFrench-language works237,207