Bibliographic record
Abstract
The text which follows considers the subject of pyrotechnology from the perspective of the unchanging rules of physics and chemistry, and my fifty years of experience in industrial pyrotechnology in operations, research, and consulting, with publication of more than one hundred papers on the subject.The book is an expansion of a series of papers on ancient pyrotechnology that I have been publishing occasionally in archaeological journals since 1986, as a senior research associate in the Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science in the University of Toronto.It also uses data from my industrial research and development papers published some time ago and contains some of my unpublished experimental work on replicated ancient furnaces.The approach I have taken is from a furnace operator's point of view, so that the writing style is that of the natural sciences rather than that of the social sciences.This can create problems in understanding across cultures because of differences both in accustomed jargon and in habits of style, but these are perennial difficulties, and a conscious effort has been made to avoid jargon or to explain it when unavoidable.While development of furnace practices through time is necessarily involved, this book is not intended as a history of pyrotechnology.Many of my examples of ancient pyrotechnology are taken from the archaeological literatures of the east end of the Mediterranean basin where the evidence is over the longest term, in most abundance, and most easily available.Furnaces operate on the same physical and chemical bases everywhere, and I refer to, for example, South America or Africa only for interesting or unusual practices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.609 | 0.440 |
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".