MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246696869 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.8538

The Latrine in the Roman Bathhouse at Humayma, Jordan

2018· article· en· W4246696869 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Craig Harvey

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatrineArchaeologyExcavationGeographyExtant taxonAncient historyHistoryEnvironmental scienceSanitationEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the summer of 2010 an archaeological excavation, under the direction of Dr. Reeves of the Classics Department at Queen’s, uncovered the remains of a latrine at the Roman site of Humayma, Jordan. This latrine was part of a larger bathhouse which was associated with a nearby Roman fort. Typical of Roman latrines, the one at Humayma was a large room with seats for up to seven people built over a waste channel. The latrine also had a smaller channel for personal cleaning after using the latrine. Both these channels were fed from overflow water from the bath. This paper examines the latrine in relation to similar Roman facilities in the Near East. The paper also looks at the larger picture of the latrine’s place in the complex system of water management and use implemented by the ancient inhabitants of the Jordanian desert. Comparative research reveals that the latrine at Humayma followed typical designs oflatrines in the Roman Near East. Similar features from other sites also allow for the development of theories regarding archaeological features no longer extant in the latrine at Humayma. The construction of the facility shows to what extent the Roman garrison influenced local building and the presence of a drain hints at the reusing of water vital for survival in the desert at Humayma

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207