MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387821381 · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-44875-0

Bayesian regression versus machine learning for rapid age estimation of archaeological features identified with lidar at Angkor

2023· article· en· W4387821381 on OpenAlexaff
W. Christopher Carleton, Sarah Klassen, Jonathan Niles‐Weed, Damian Evans, Patrick Roberts, Huw S. Groucutt

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMax-Planck-Gesellschaft
KeywordsLidarDocumentationPopulationBayesian probabilityRegressionGeographyArchaeologyArtificial intelligenceMachine learningComputer sciencePhysical geographyRemote sensingCartographyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lidar (light-detection and ranging) has revolutionized archaeology. We are now able to produce high-resolution maps of archaeological surface features over vast areas, allowing us to see ancient land-use and anthropogenic landscape modification at previously un-imagined scales. In the tropics, this has enabled documentation of previously archaeologically unrecorded cities in various tropical regions, igniting scientific and popular interest in ancient tropical urbanism. An emerging challenge, however, is to add temporal depth to this torrent of new spatial data because traditional archaeological investigations are time consuming and inherently destructive. So far, we are aware of only one attempt to apply statistics and machine learning to remotely-sensed data in order to add time-depth to spatial data. Using temples at the well-known massive urban complex of Angkor in Cambodia as a case study, a predictive model was developed combining standard regression with novel machine learning methods to estimate temple foundation dates for undated Angkorian temples identified with remote sensing, including lidar. The model's predictions were used to produce an historical population curve for Angkor and study urban expansion at this important ancient tropical urban centre. The approach, however, has certain limitations. Importantly, its handling of uncertainties leaves room for improvement, and like many machine learning approaches it is opaque regarding which predictor variables are most relevant. Here we describe a new study in which we investigated an alternative Bayesian regression approach applied to the same case study. We compare the two models in terms of their inner workings, results, and interpretive utility. We also use an updated database of Angkorian temples as the training dataset, allowing us to produce the most current estimate for temple foundations and historic spatiotemporal urban growth patterns at Angkor. Our results demonstrate that, in principle, predictive statistical and machine learning methods could be used to rapidly add chronological information to large lidar datasets and a Bayesian paradigm makes it possible to incorporate important uncertainties-especially chronological-into modelled temporal estimates.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicArchaeological Research and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207