Trypillia from Dniester to Dnieper in the second half of the 5th mill. BC: farming colonization, invasions, migrations (possibilities of investigations)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes, that have occurred in the area of distribution of the cultural complex Cucuteni-Trypillia can be considered using traditional methods for studying of pottery assemblages, of course, taking into account data from the natural sciences, including paleogenetics. For the period of the spreading of the painted pottery and formation of Cucuteni-Trypillia, reconstructions were carried out before only taking into account the interpretation of the results of ceramic studies, which showed both the progress and the formation of some new cultural groups of various levels. In the second case, the events of the last quarter of 5th mil. BC were examined and then verified using both the study of pottery assemblages, including pottery of the «Cucuteni C» type, paleogenetics and anthropology. A comparison of the results showed the possibilities of mutual verification, as well as the unique source-study capabilities of various methods that give the greatest effect with an interdisciplinary approach. As a result, it was possible to successfully compare the results of genetic studies that showed the penetration into the communities of Trypillia farmers some amount of representatives of populations related to western and eastern hunter-gatherers, partially connected with other groups of the farming population, indicated in some cases by archaeological materials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".