MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220733943 · doi:10.35424/rearam.v0i39.957

El poder de los antiguos estados de Los Andes Centrales

2022· article· es· W4220733943 on OpenAlexaff
Lidio M. Valdéz

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Arqueología Americana · 2022
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLatin American history and culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

¿Cuál fue el poderío (o poder) de los antiguos estados Wari e Inka? Determinar el poder o específicamente la capacidad transformativa tanto del estado Wari como del estado Inka es una tarea complicada, en tanto que la evidencia arqueológica que denote poderío está sujeta a la interpretación. Sin embargo, existen algunos variables que pueden ser empleados para ganar una apreciación del poder de estos dos estados antiguos de los Andes centrales. Aquí se discute el poder de ambos estados de manera comparativa, tomando como puntos de referencia algunas regiones que fueron incorporadas al control de estos dos estados.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de Arqueología AmericanaSame topicLatin American history and cultureFrench-language works237,207