MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Population, Urbanization, and Settlement Patterns in the Late Iron Age

2024· book-chapter· en· W4392740339 on OpenAlexaff
Alejandro G. Sinner, César Carreras Monfort, Pieter Houten

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeological and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban agglomerationSettlement (finance)UrbanizationGeographyHuman settlementPeninsulaHierarchyEconomic geographyPopulationIron AgeSample (material)PoliticsRegional scienceDemographyArchaeologyPolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologyComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chapter 4 uses a methodological approach to estimate the population of Iron Age settlements (oppida) in the territory under study, as well as to identify urbanization ratios and settlement patterns. The chapter also addresses the challenges faced while working with Iron Age data, such as the lack of a complete sample of cities and the difficulty of determining which settlements should be classified as urban, secondary agglomerations, or rural sites. The chapter also employs rank-size analysis, which is a method used to evaluate whether city sizes display regularities that indicate a hierarchy related to territorial and/or political control, and employs this method to analyse a large sample of sites from each Iron Age group individually. This approach provides a new perspective on the similarities and differences between the settlement hierarchies and political systems of different Iron Age groups in the Iberian peninsula.

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)0.000
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArchaeological and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207