Visual Foundation Models for Archaeological Remote Sensing: A Zero-Shot Approach
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
We investigate the applicability of visual foundation models, a recent advancement in artificial intelligence, for archaeological remote sensing. In contrast to earlier approaches, we employ a strictly zero-shot methodology, testing the hypothesis that such models can perform archaeological feature detection without any fine-tuning or other adaptation for the remote sensing domain. Across five experiments using satellite imagery, aerial LiDAR, and drone video data, we assess the models’ ability to detect archaeological features. Our results demonstrate that such foundation models can achieve detection performance comparable to that of human experts and established automated methods. A key advantage lies in the substantial reduction of required human effort and the elimination of the need for training data. To support reproducibility and future experimentation, we provide open-source scripts and datasets and suggest a novel workflow for remote sensing projects. If current trends persist, foundation models may offer a scalable and accessible alternative to conventional archaeological prospection.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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