THE CENTRAL CONSTRUCTION COMPLEX OF THE KARA-TOBE FORTIFIED SETTLEMENT IN THE NORTHWESTERN CRIMEA: NEW MATERIALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Статья посвящена результатам последних полевых и камеральных исследований греко-скифского городища Кара-Тобе в Северо-Западном Крыму. В последней четверти II в. до н. э. здесь строится небольшое укрепление уникальной планировки. Его Центральный строительный комплекс (ЦСК) в период вхождения Крыма в состав державы Митридата Евпатора, видимо, был местом размещения гарнизона понтийских войск. В статье рассматривается планировочная структура комплекса, его датировка, периодизация; затрагивается вопрос о смешенном этническом составе населения укрепления. На основании анализа проведенного инструментального обмера конструкций установлено, что в основе плана ЦСК использованы меры длины, распространенные в Херсонесе. Это позволило составить план-реконструкцию Центрального комплекса (рис. 3). fortified settlement in the northwestern Crimea. A small fortified settlement of unique planning was built in the area of the Crimea in the second quarter of the 2nd century BC. Apparently, when the Crimea was a part of the Kingdom of Pontus ruled by Mithradates VI Eupator, a garrison of Pontus troops was stationed at the settlement. The paper reviews the planning of the complex, its dating, periodization and also touches upon the issue of the mixed ethnic composition of the fortified settlement population. The analysis of its measurements found that measures of length common in Chersonesus were used as the basis of the Central Construction Complex plan. This helped prepare a plan of the Central Construction Complex reconstruction (Fig. 3)
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".