What makes a site unitary? The case study of Como-Spina Verde in the Iron Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This contribution aims to underline the dynamics that led to the development of the wide settlement of Spina Verde, near present day Como, during the Final Bronze and the Early Iron Age (X-beginning of IV century BC). Settlement traces occupy a vast area (from the southwestern slopes of the Spina Verde height to the plateau of the municipality of San Fermo della Battaglia). In the period of its first maximum expansion, the settled area reached 60 ha, and later expanded to 150 ha: it is commonly defined as a proto-urban centre. The evidence is anyway not continuous, due to the research history and to the impact of modern constructions. Based on archaeological data, how can we judge whether this area is occupied by a single political unit or by multiple realities that are extremely close to each other? Through the study of the structural evidence that characterizes the mentioned landscape (e.g. dwellings, terraces, channels for water management, roads) along with the study of the structures‘ orientation, it can be possible to define some characteristics that are coherent with a unitary site. The interpretation of the different entities as a wide and single site is rooted in a comparative study and a multidisciplinary approach: both archaeological and ethnographic comparisons have been used. This procedure has helped to generate an archaeological map of the settlement of Spina Verde, Como, starting from the systematic review of the excavation reports and bibliographic sources, with the contribution of lidar surveys and geophysical prospections, in OA GIS environment (Qgis). The coherence of data has in this way been critically validated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".