Catalogazione informatizzata e fruizione dei dati. La cultura pavimentale dell'Italia centrale in epoca romana e il Progetto TESS: analisi ponderata e revisione cronologica dei contesti \n
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation illustrates the results of an articulated project aimed at developing and testing a system of analysis and interpretation of the information contained in the TESS database (designed and directed by the University of Padua). The main objective of the research was the identification of a series of significant reading parameters for the study of ancient pavements. According to this, the project first envisaged the development of a system for classifying chronological markers related to ancient floors, in order to provide users of the database with immediate information on the reliability of dating. The introduction of a new ranking system required a careful verification of the date ranges assigned to the objects in the database: for this reason, the research was focused on central Italy and in particular on Rome and Latium area (in which more than a quarter of the cataloged artifacts are concentrated). The research has thus made it possible to identify a series of chronological cornerstones; in addition, the application of statistical techniques verified the existence of intrinsic markers of absolute chronology. The achieved results led to the proposition of chronological classification applicable to at least the ancient pavements of central Italy, whose preliminary experimentation seems to open new perspectives of research
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".