MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414213922 · doi:10.36950/hyperboreus.mwfh5685

Lead Letter from the Excavations of Area ‘O-Western’ at the Berezan Settlement in 2017

2019· article· en· W4414213922 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dmitry Chistov, Natalia Pavlichenko

Bibliographic record

VenueHyperboreus · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcavationPotteryContext (archaeology)Quarter (Canadian coin)Settlement (finance)Period (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2017, during excavations of an ancient Greek settlement-site on the island of Berezan in the mouth of the Dnieper and Bug estuary, the expedition of the State Hermitage found a letter on a twice folded lead plate. This letter, on the plate broken on left and right, contains eight lines scratched in boustrophedon style. It was discovered in the fill of a household pit located ca 50 m from the place where, in 1982, a fragmentary lead letter also of the 2nd quarter of the 6th century BC was found. Both the archaeological context (e.g. Attic pottery and ‘proto-Thasian’ amphorae were absent in the pit) and the palaeographic peculiarities of the inscription allow us to date the find under consideration to the 1st half or even the 2nd quarter of the 6th century BC. This is the early pit-dwelling period in the occupation of the Berezan settlement. Despite the poor state of preservation of the letter here published, it may be concluded that it probably belongs to letters of economic contents, in particular, to a correspondence between a merchant who conducted large-scale exporting operations on the Berezan and his counteragent.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHyperboreusSame topicAncient and Medieval Archaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207