MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411542108 · doi:10.4000/146of

Des treuils à tambour en Sardaigne à l’âge du Bronze ? Hypothèse sur la mécanisation des forces de levage à partir des sources iconographiques nuragiques

2025· article· fr· W4411542108 on OpenAlexaff
Kewin Pêche-Quilichini

Bibliographic record

VenueArcheopages · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Mediterranean Archaeology and History
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesBronzeArtGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les nuraghi sont des monuments en forme de tour à chambres internes voûtées et superposées qui apparaissent en Sardaigne au cours de l’âge du Bronze. Construits au moyen de blocs massifs de pierre, ils atteignent probablement une hauteur de près de 25 mètres pour certains d’entre eux. Depuis près d’un siècle, les chercheurs s’interrogent sur le mode de levage des lourds moellons qui forment les parements supérieurs. Si plusieurs hypothèses ont été émises, aucune ne fait à ce jour consensus. Dans le cadre de cette contribution, on émet l’hypothèse que les ingénieurs nuragiques ont pu utiliser des treuils à tambour (ou « cages d’écureuil ») pour soulever des quartiers de roche de plus d’une tonne à des hauteurs dépassant 20 mètres. Cette proposition ne repose sur aucune observation matérielle directe. Elle se fonde sur une interprétation possible d’un motif récurrent de l’iconographie sarde du Bronze final et du premier âge du Fer, qui pourrait représenter en section ce type d’appareil de levage.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArcheopagesSame topicAncient Mediterranean Archaeology and HistoryFrench-language works237,207