RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY OF THE POLYANKA SETTLEMENT IN THE CRIMEAN PRIAZOVIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Практически на каждом античном поселении встречаются находки, как более ранние, так и более поздние, нежели основная их масса, связанная собственно с конкретными культурными напластованиями. Не исключение и городище Полянка в Крымском Приазовье (III–I вв. до н. э.). Здесь немногочисленные обломки амфор, а это самые «объективные» по своей характеристике и надежной хронологии артефакты, относятся к первой половине и концу V, второй или последней четвертям следующего века, II–III и, видимо, IV–VI вв. н. э. Появление их не только случайно, но и связано с разными причинами и обстоятельствами хозяйственного, географического или сакрального плана. Учет данного фактора важен для определения так называемой относительной хронологии того или иного памятника археологии при его постановке на соответствующий учет региональными органами их охраны. Practically each Ancient Greek settlement yields a certain number of finds other than bulk finds both from the earlier and later periods directly related to specific occupation layers. The Polyanka fortified settlement in the Crimean Priazovia (3rd–1st centuries BC) is no exception. A small number of fragments of the amphorae retrieved from Polyanka serve to be the most ‘objective’ artifacts in terms of their characteristics and reliable chronology and date to the first half and the end of the 5th century, the second or the last quarter of the subsequent century and, apparently, to the 4th–6th centuries AD. Their appearance is not only incidental, but is also linked to various reasons and economical, geographical or sacral aspects. It is important to take this factor into account in determining the so called relative chronology of an archaeological site which is to be entered into the records of relevant regional agencies that work to protect archaeological heritage.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".