MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391649798 · doi:10.1080/1751696x.2024.2304320

Locations of Cornish cairns in relation to the Rough Tor Effect

2023· article· en· W4391649798 on OpenAlexaff
Roger Farnworth, Peter Herring, Bryn Tapper, Cathy Rozel Farnworth

Bibliographic record

VenueTime and Mind · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies of British Isles
Canadian institutionsSt. John’s Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCornishPrehistoryArchaeologyMegalithAncient historyViewshed analysisBronzeMammothGeographyHistoryCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hundreds of round cairns and barrows survive on the granite uplands of Bodmin Moor, with hundreds more beyond the Moor, including along the Cornish coast. We posit that their distribution is far from random, or related merely to the territories of Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age people, especially as many Cornish cairns and barrows do not contain burials. Most of those in east Cornwall enjoy a direct sightline to Rough Tor, and Stowe’s Hill is visible from many of the remainder. Cairns were also built on Rough Tor itself. Siting cairns and barrows within the viewsheds of these sacred hills infers a late prehistoric acknowledgement of their ritual supremacy. The accretion of ceremonial monuments on these hills and in the viewshed of Rough Tor and, to a lesser degree, Stowe’s Hill shows that they had been sacred for millennia, from the Middle Neolithic onwards. The placing of cairns and barrows within the viewshed of these sacred hills is supported by the fact that in large areas of east Cornwall from which neither hill is visible there are few or no cairns or barrows, leading to barrow voids. In a very few cases, alternative sacred hills appear to have been sought.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime and MindSame topicHistorical Studies of British IslesFrench-language works237,207