MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303427536 · doi:10.24852/pa2022.3.41.188.203

Contacts Between the Populations of Chirkovskya and Asbestos-Tempered Palayguba Ceramics

2022· article· en· W4303427536 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhul’nikov Aleksandr M.

Bibliographic record

VenuePovolzhskaya Arkheologiya (The Volga River Region Archaeology) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPotteryGeographyStructural basinArchaeologyVolga regionQuarter (Canadian coin)Ancient historyPhysical geographyGeologyGeomorphologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the end of the last quarter of the III millennium BC populations producing the Chirkovskaya (Fatyanovo-like) pottery combining the late Volosovo and Fatyanovo-Balanovo features migrated from the Upper and Middle Volga to the middle and northern taiga zone of Eastern Europe. On the southern and south-eastern coasts of Lake Onega migrating groups contacted with the aboriginal populations producing the Asbestos-tempered pottery of the Palayguba type. Contacts of the local and incoming groups, according to the results of the study, were restricted only to marriage and can be traced by the changes in the ceramic production. Differences in the spread of decoration motives, characteristic for local varieties of the Chirkovskaya pottery allow the author to suggest two main directions of the influence of migrating groups onto the aboriginal culture with the Palayguba ceramics. The frst vector of contacts starts in the Middle Volga region, continues to the Sukhona River basin and, through Lacha and Vozhe lakes, proceeds to the south-eastern coast of Onega Lake. The southern vector which is connected to the Upper Volga region, proceeds from the Beloye lake basin to the southern coast of Onega Lake.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePovolzhskaya Arkheologiya (The Volga River Region Archaeology)Same topicAncient and Medieval Archaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207