Identifying and Tracing Archaeological Material with RFID Tags
Bibliographic record
Abstract
: In this paper we propose to label archaeological materials with RFID (RadioFrequency IDentification) tags in order to identify them in an unambiguous way. In this way, it is possible to trace the relevant information associated to them, through all the phases of archaeological work, from fieldwork to museum storage. The system has been specifically designed to be integrated with the working procedures of the archaeological team working on the Segedaproject (Segeda 2012). This technique improves archaeological work in several ways. First, it speeds up the process of collecting, saving, updating and duplicating the data associated with every piece of material. Second, it increases the information that can be stored with the material and can be retrieved without connection to the database. Third, it reduces human error in transcribing information. Finally, RFID labelling facilitates the process of localizing stored material and controlling its movement. Keywords: Information Management, Traceability, Radiofrequency Information Introduction. Traceability in the Archaeological Work When traceability is present in a productive process, it means that, at every step in the process, information about every product is collected and attached to it without ambiguity. We know all the production parameters of a specific item or group of items and also who is responsible for this information and when and where these data were collected. This knowledge is always available because it is precisely documented. Archaeological research is divided in several steps. It is also a chain process that, in the context we work, starts at the excavation site where the findings are unearthed. These elements are moved to the laboratory in order to be cleaned and inventoried. In the next phase, the reconstruction of ceramic pieces is addressed. These pieces must finally be catalogued and sent to a museum. At every step, archaeologists must record information about the excavated artefacts. These data must accompany the items in order to assure their provenance, control the validity of the archaeological work and conclusions, and facilitate information exchange. Traceability is essential in the work of an archaeologist, usually following a recording manual where the data to be taken, the way the items are identified and the collection protocol are precisely defined (Parks Canada 2005, 129).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".