MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400391372 · doi:10.1080/00934690.2024.2372740

Survey Techniques and Landscape Archaeology on the Banks of the Ancient <i>Lacus Ligustinus</i> (Southern Spain)

2024· article· en· W4400391372 on OpenAlexfundno aff
María del Mar Castro García, Daniel Jesús Martín-Arroyo Sánchez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Field Archaeology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeological and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad de CádizUniversidad de GranadaUniversitat de BarcelonaMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónUniversité LavalUniversità degli Studi di SienaEuropean Commission
KeywordsArchaeologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of complementary techniques in this paper contributes to a better understanding of the long-term evolution of the riparian landscape on the southern banks of the lacus Ligustinus (current Guadalquivir marshlands) through the knowledge of related human settlements. The techniques used included field-transect surveys, malacology, anthracology, radiocarbon dating, and magnetometry. Deep plowing at the archaeological site of Haza de Santa Catalina revealed vestiges of different time periods. Comprehensive datasets based on best archaeological practices were collected to explore holistic ecological perspectives and changes over time. Here, we focus specifically on the transition between the 4th and 3rd millennia (Neolithic) and the 1st millennium b.c. (Iron Age–Early Roman period) in western Andalusia. In addition, the theoretical frameworks related to the concepts of riparia and emptyscape are expanded with the knowledge gained in the archaeological fieldwork.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 venueJournal of Field ArchaeologySame topicArchaeological and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207