MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312218104 · doi:10.1163/27723194-bja10015

House and Boat: Reuse of Ship Planking in a 10th Century Building at Hungate, York

2022· article· en· W4312218104 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven James Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Wood Culture · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMaritime and Coastal Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchaeologyExcavationProvenanceEngineeringWoodworkingQuarter (Canadian coin)Building constructionGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Excavations in 2008–2009 in Hungate, York, UK, conducted by the York Archaeological Trust (now York Archaeology) revealed the waterlogged timbers of another building of a type best known from Coppergate. This building, dating to the third quarter of the 10th century CE , was superficially of the same construction as seen earlier at Coppergate, consisting of a rectangular pit cut into the ground lined with posts that supported a boarded outer lining. At Coppergate, the timbers were largely freshly felled specifically for the buildings in which they were found, and the tree ring sequences were local to the York region. However, at Hungate, when the timbers were lifted, it was immediately apparent that the board lining was made up of reused articulated slabs from a clinker-built boat. Moreover, the type of clinker construction was unusual and not of the “typical” Northwest European/Scandinavian type. Dendrochronological samples allowed the identification of potential sources of boat timbers, which were not local to York. This paper considers the evidence provided by the study of woodworking technology and the work done to identify the type of boat, its potential provenance, and the provenance of the timber used in its construction.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Wood CultureSame topicMaritime and Coastal ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207