On the dating of Ancient and Early Byzantine strata at the Belinskoye settlement in the Eastern Crimea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article deals with the amphora material from the excavations of 1996–2020 at the Belinskoye settlement in the Eastern Crimea. The purpose of the article is to correct the previously proposed chronological scheme of settlement development in the Ancient and Early Byzantine periods. According to the place of discovery, the fragments of profiled parts of amphorae (1688 fragments) are divided by the author into three groups corresponding to three periods in the history of the settlement. Within each group, the dominant types of amphorae have been identified and the dating of all amphorae fragments has been compared. In the end the paper has confirmed the chronological framework of the first two periods (early/first half 2nd – the middle/third quarter of the 3rd centuries BC and the second quarter 3rd – the end of the first quarter of 4th centuries BC) and established the continuity of the development of the settlement at this stage. The chronological framework of the third period has been significantly adjusted. After the destruction of the settlement at the end of the first quarter of the 4th century AD, new settlers do not appear here until the first half/middle of the 5th century AD. The end of the third period is determined by the boundary of the first and second quarters of the 4th century AD. There is no continuity with the earlier settlement.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".