Bibliographic record
Abstract
I 2019 og 2020 undersøgte arkæologer fra Museet Sønderskov dele af et formodet middelalderligt vandmølleanlæg sammen med amatørarkæologer og vandmølleekspert Christian Fischer (Grundvad 2021). Undersøgelserne inkluderede analyser af LIDAR (laser-indmålte terrænkort), arkivalske gennemgange, strategisk udlagte prøvehuller og mindre søgegrøfter på en lokalitet, som i dag fremstår temmelig omfattende med velbevarede jordværker, som også antydes i stednavne samt det historiske kortmateriale. Denne artikel behandler resultaterne af disse undersøgelser, som faktisk var kulminationen på studier udført i perioden 1935-2020. Således inddrages også de tidligere registreringer, som gennem ca. 90 år er gennemført på og umiddelbart omkring lokaliteten. Målet er at vise, hvorledes en vandmølletomt nu er tilføjet tolkningen af det kulturlandskab, som omgiver Hundsbæk Hovedgård, der i middelalderen var i kongeligt eje. Et andet mål er at demonstrere hvor gode resultater, der kan opnås via et lokalforankret samarbejde med frivillige.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.449 | 0.312 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".