Archaeological Testing of a 3.3-acre Parcel, Mesa, Arizona
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of an archaeological testing program conducted by Desert Archaeology, Inc., within a 3.3- acre property (Parcel No. 136-08-007-H) located in Mesa, Arizona, are presented in this report. The work was prompted by discovery of a small prehistoric artifact scatter during a cultural resources survey (Clark 2006) near an area where prehistoric trash and house mounds had been recorded in the early twentieth century. The artifacts and previous record suggested the potential for buried archaeological remains within the property. The purpose of the testing was to determine if such remains were present, and if found, to evaluate them in terms of their integrity, extent, and significance. This work was conducted at the request of the Venture Development Group, as required by the City of Mesa Historic Preservation Office and in compliance with Section 106 of the National Preservation Historic Act, as the planned construction of a bank in the eastern quarter of the lot represents a federal undertaking. Dr. Tiffany Clark directed the fieldwork, which began on 31 January 2007, and was completed in four person days of effort on 2 February 2007. The fieldwork was in accordance with the testing plan prepared by Desert Archaeology (Henderson 2007), with modifications to address comments provided by the City of Mesa and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) (Bilsbarrow 2007). The testing strategy was also altered as information about the subsurface context was obtained from initial trench excavations. A total of 166 m of trench was excavated during testing. Although small quantities of prehistoric artifacts were observed, no archaeological features were found on the property. The testing program also established that the subsurface context of the property has been substantially disturbed and modified in the modern era. Based on the findings, it is concluded that development of the parcel will not have an effect on significant cultural resources. A recommendation is made that development of the property proceed as planned.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".