MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386136136 · doi:10.1021/bk-2023-1446.ch005

Fuliginochronology and Radiocarbon for the Direct Dating of Human Occupation Chronicles in Caves

2023· book-chapter· en· W4386136136 on OpenAlexafffund
Ségolène Vandevelde, Adelphine Bonneau, Jacques Élie Brochier, Thomas Higham, Christophe Petit, Ludovic Slimak

Bibliographic record

VenueACS symposium series · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersEuropean CommissionUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
KeywordsRadiocarbon datingCaveSootChronologyArchaeologyGeologyAssemblage (archaeology)PaleontologyGeographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fuliginochronology consists of establishing the chronology of human occupations from the study of soot deposits that are traces of paleo-fires or lighting devices that are contemporary with human occupations. These deposits are recorded in speleothems as high resolution archives where they can be observed according to their relative chronological order, providing a way of reconstructing historical narratives about the occupation of archaeological sites. However, these soot-based chronicles are "floating" in time; direct radiocarbon dating of the soot can place the human occupations associated with the soot layers in calendar time. This chapter focuses on methodology and demonstrates the feasibility of such a dating procedure. We have used the method to successfully date several soot deposits collected micro-stratigraphically in a same millimeter-thick carbonated parietal deposit at the Grotte Mandrin site (Malataverne, Drôme, France).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS symposium seriesSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207