THE BURIAL PRACTICES OF THE GRAVETTIAN AND THE EPI-GRAVETTIAN PERIODS IN ITALY, CZECH REPUBLIC, AND RUSSIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the burial practice in the Gravettian (early Upper Paleolithic) and the Epi-Gravettian periods (lateUpper Paleolithic) in Italy, and the Gravettian period (early Upper Paleolithic) in Czech and Russia. In Italy, the Gravettianand the Epi-Gravettian burial sites were mostly situated in caves because geologically Italy has extensive karstic systemsthroughout Alpine mountains. Meanwhile, the Gravettian single and multiple burial sites in Czech and Russia were foundin an alluvial plain. The single burials are more numerous in the Epi-Gravettian than the Gravettian periods in Italy.Furthermore, Italy has the largest number of the Gravettian single and multiple burials compared to Czech and Russia. Ifthe compass direction and the corpse placement (prosthesis) in the ground and the position of the head are considered, itapparently links to their origin. The ancestors of the Gravettian peoples in Italy, Czech, and Russia are supposed to haveoriginated from the East or Southeast. The disparity of cultural behavior between the Gravettian and the Epi-Gravettianperiods in Italy can be deduced by the number of single burial and the environmental condition where the Gravettianperiod developed during the last glacial maximum (LGM), while the Epi-Gravettian happened in warmer condition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".