Assessing ancient conflict landscapes through KOCOA analysis: the case of Burnswark hillfort (SW Scotland)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper applies KOCOA terrain analysis to the study of the Iron Age hillfort of Burnswark Hill (SW Scotland) and its associated Roman military remains. The Roman camps and projectiles identified at Burnswark have sparked a long scholarly debate, with views ranging from authors that interpret the evidence as related to Roman military training at an already abandoned hillfort, and others who consider it representative of a brutal Roman military attack on an indigenous stronghold. This article presents the recently undertaken KOCOA analysis of the site, which assesses how the terrain influenced the conduct of the Roman intervention at Burnswark. The results are used in conjunction with the insights provided by the metal detector surveys and excavations from the last decade. The combined evidence strongly suggests that the events at Burnswark can best be described as a Roman oppugnatio longinqua obsidio, an active siege that ended in a storming assault.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it