MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393985200 · doi:10.1080/15740773.2024.2330916

Geophysical approaches to the archaeological prospection of early modern battlefield landscapes: a review of methods and objectives

2024· review· en· W4393985200 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Conflict Archaeology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of GlasgowSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaBournemouth University
KeywordsProspectionBattlefieldArchaeologyHistoryGeographyAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews methodological approaches in battlefield archaeology with a focus on sites of the early modern period, ca.17th-19th century.The challenges associated with the prospection of these sites partially explains the relative lack of serious research in this area until the late 20th century.While acknowledging the foundational role of conventional metal detection in overcoming these difficulties, it is argued that other less widely deployed geophysical methods should be increasingly used as part of an integrated approach to studying battlefield landscapes.Targets of interest are reviewed alongside the geophysical properties that might enable their detection and a selection of case studies successfully deploying these approaches within battlefield archaeology and adjacent disciplines are considered.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.208 · 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