MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Trade and 'treasure': the role of Suakin in the movement of valuables (15th–19th centuries)

2020· article· en· W3120930337 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrence A. Smith, Shadia Taha, J. Philips, Michael Mallinson

Bibliographic record

VenuePolish Archaeology in the Mediterranean · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Maritime and Colonial Histories
Canadian institutionsArthur B. McDonald-Canadian Astroparticle Physics Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPotteryTreasureChinaArchaeologyGeographyPeninsulaAncient historySouth asiaHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses historical and archaeological evidence for the ‘valuables’ passing through Suakin, as part of the Red Sea-Indian Ocean trade. The main locations on Suakin Island Town investigated 2002-2013 are briefly described. Interviews show that at Suakin, in the later 19th century/early 20th century, imported valuables included fabrics from Europe, perfume oils, cloths and wooden chests from India; porcelain from China and Turkey; rugs from Persia/Iran and glass from Italy. Interviews and early modern European accounts indicate the range of products from the hinterland, such as cotton, gold, ivory, ostrich feathers, slaves, horses, gum arabic, ebony, musk, tobacco, rubber and coffee. Local fishermen supplied fish, shells, pearls and mother-of-pearl. The archaeological evidence indicates pottery and porcelain from the Arabian Peninsula, south-west Asia, south Asia, China and south-east Asia, while identifications of wood samples indicates teak from south and south-east Asia. A combination of archaeological, historical and ethnographic evidence is needed to build up a picture of the trade in valuables.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

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 studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 venuePolish Archaeology in the MediterraneanSame topicGlobal Maritime and Colonial HistoriesFrench-language works237,207