Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was designed for the iconographic subjects to evaluate and supplemented by commentaries, correlations and other aspect was traced.Pictograms as human, zoomorphic and artificial structures.Objects as ideograms and psychograms where the subjects depicted beneath, are those which show up with repetition in the general corpus of paintings of Swat or have a self-evident, recognized significance.Subsequently, the 3 sites are focused in Swat and in Mansehra, there are 11 sites.Signs in which one recognizes representations of objects, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures which following the proposed grammatical analogy would function as nouns.Under consideration, for instance, human figures 272 case, the nature of their stylistic variations, weapons i.e. warriors represent the largest numerical group 78 personages on horseback, 17 on foot, which should be added the archers 23 on horseback and 5 not.Dancers are found at only two sites, tools and emblems exhibited by humans for Farmers and Shepherds.Animal figures like monkeys, Felines, and their implications, Geometric, Grid-like Designs, Ideograms and Icons, psychograms, dots and associated aliens were the prevailing objects.Total of 3 stupa typical Tibetan style, reported from Mansehra.While the rests are with no human figures, two of these stupas are complete while this representation absent in Swat paintings.The finding has been evaluated in the light of archaeological demonstration.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.946 | 0.938 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".