Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter continues our formal assessment of the long-term history of the island. The previous chapter considered the latest phase of human occupation on Antikythera, beginning in the late eighteenth century AD, and developed some analytical and interpretative methods that could be applied fairly consistently across other periods as well. In this chapter, we therefore jump backwards to the very earliest signs of human exploitation in the later Neolithic and proceed chronologically from then on, using the better-documented, most recent period of settlement as a clear point of comparison and contrast. EARLIER PREHISTORY The earliest confirmed evidence of human activity on the island dates to the later Neolithic, probably some 7,000 years ago. While it is possible that the island was visited even earlier (e.g., given recent work on Crete suggesting Lower Palaeolithic activity, Strasser et al. 2011), we were not able to identify confidently any components of the assemblage that are unambiguously pre-Neolithic, and until there are published radiometric dates corroborating the proposed Mesolithic industries on Crete (Strasser et al. 2011, p. 171) prefer a more parsimonious, and later-dated, explanation at this stage. In contrast, and as we discussed in Chapter 4, there is good circumstantial evidence for some kind of exploitation of the island from perhaps the fifth millennium BC, based on a limited number of technological indicators amongst the knapped stone assemblage, particularly the presence of certain obsidian projectile points.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".