BAS’YANOVO ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMPLEX OF THE NEOLITHIC IN THE FOREST TRANS-URALS: THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of the history of exploring the Bas’yanovo archaeological complex of the Neolithic in the forest Trans-Urals. At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries A. F. Shorin and V. A. Arefiev identified this ceramic complex initially as an independent type of ceramics based on materials from the Koksharovsky hill sanctuary. The authors of the first researches showed the markers of this ceramic complex, its similarity and difference from the vessels of the Boborykino culture. After the excavations of the Vtoroy poselok I site, the features of the stone industry of this new archaeological phenomenon, similar and distinguishing features of it from the Boborykino culture, were highlighted. The data on the relative stratigraphy of Koksharovsky hill, as well as the analysis of the base of radiocarbon dates, made it possible to determine the chronological framework of this cultural phenomenon within the last quarter of the 6th–5th millennium BC, i. e. the late Neolithic of the Trans-Urals. However, at present, based on materials from the excavations of the Beregovaya II site on the Gorbunovsky peat bog, the age of the Bas’yanovo cultural tradition is proposed to be dated to the turn of the 7th–6th millennium BC, i. e. attributed to the very beginning of the Neolithic in the region. The status of this cultural phenomenon in the accepted archaeological definitions can be assessed as a local variant of the Boborykino culture. The assessment of the ratio of the Boborykino and Bas’yanovo complexes of the Trans-Urals can also be interpreted from the standpoint of another culturological approach — the concept of “archaeological continuity”.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".