MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

תל חליף –2007

2008· article· W4417108148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueḤadašŵt ʾarkeyŵlŵgiyŵt. · 2008
Typearticle
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiamiHospitalityState (computer science)ExcavationArtifact (error)Field research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During June -July 2007, the first season of the Lahav Research Project, Phase IV was conducted at Tel Halif (License No. G-19/2007; map ref. NIG 187/587-8; OIG 137/087-8). The excavation was directed by O. Borowski of Emory University (photography), with the participation of Emory University and Miami University of Ohio as consortium member institutions. Additional support was provided by the Michael C. Carlos Museum of Emory University, the Heritage Fund of ASOR, the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University, the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, the Joe Alon Center at Qibbuz Lahav and individual donors. The field staff included Professors D. Appler (Moravian Theological Seminary), J. Bidmead (Miami University), and J.W. Hardin (Cobb Institute), J. Bos (University of Michigan; area supervison trainee), M. Broida (Emory University; registration), aided by L. Abramson (Miami University), D. Kerges (Cobb Institute; drafting and supervision help in Area H7) and J. Rosenberg (AIAR; surveying). Eighteen undergraduate and graduate students from the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand participated in the program. The expedition wishes to thank Qibbuz Lahav for its hospitality and other services and to A. Navon who served as liaison with the qibbuz.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2390.142

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.165 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueḤadašŵt ʾarkeyŵlŵgiyŵt.Same topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207