СРАВНИТЕЛЬНАЯ ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКА КЕРАМИЧЕСКИХ НАБОРОВ РАННЕСРЕДНЕВЕКОВЫХ ПОСЕЛЕНИЙ ГОРОДОК 1 И ЮРЬЕВСКАЯ ГОРКА
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Резюме. В статье по единой классификационной схеме были проанализированы наборы керамики известных селищ Городок 1 и Юрьевская Горка, расположенных в бассейне Верхней Мсты. Оба поселения датируются третьей четвертью I тыс. н. э. Городок 1 относится к культуре псковских длинных курганов. Мнение о принадлежности поселения Юрьевская Горка к иным древностям поддержано не всеми исследователями. Проведенное сопоставление позволило наиболее отчетливо выявить несхожесть поселений по массовому материалу. На селище Городок 1 преобладает посуда типа 11, на селище Юрьевская Горка - типов 7 и 8. Это позволяет обоснованно говорить об имеющихся различиях в культурной принадлежности данных памятников и, следовательно, о разном населении, их оставившем. Схожее присутствие на обоих селищах керамики типов 6, 10 и форм 2 и 3, видимо, связано с общей местной подосновой. The paper analyzes ceramics sets from the well-known unfortified settlements of Gorodok 1 and Yuryevskaya Gorka located in the Msta Upstream region, using the same classification scheme. Both settlements are dated to the third quarter of I millennium. Gorodok 1 is attributed to the Pskov long barrows culture. Not all researchers share the view that Yuryevskaya Gorka belongs to a different historical period. The present comparison provides an opportunity to reveal a lack of similarity between these two settlements based on frequent finds. Ceramic vessels of type 11 predominate at Gorodok 1, while Yuryevskaya Gorka has mostly yielded vessels of types 7 and 8. These results allow us to talk with fair confidence about differences in their cultural affiliation and, therefore, different population groups that left behind these settlements. Similar presence of ceramics of types 6, 10 and shapes 2 and 3 is apparently linked to common local background.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.019 |
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".