Collapsed beams and wooden remains from a 3200 BC temple and palace at Arslantepe (Malatya, Turkey)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pinus is viewed as the best, but we have hypothesised that it was probably less available than the other trees in the area around the site, as it is not very abundant. The fact that oak was used very little for the construction of the palace and temple, is possibly due to the \nsmall dimensions of oak at that time, or other properties or meanings that we, today, do not appreciate.; At Arslantepe in the final centuries of the Late Chalcolithic period (3350-3000 BC) there was evidence of a massive boost given to the system of centralising and redistributing goods. It was in this period, coeval to the Late Uruk phase in Mesopotamia, that a huge monumental public architectural complex was built. Because of its division into sectors with different functions and different architectural features (temples, stores, areas for discarding administrative materials, a courtyard, corridors), it may be considered to be the first known example of a “palace” to have been discovered in the whole of the Near East, with areas set aside for performing the main public religious and secular functions. Two temples were excavated, of which the second one, temple B, consisting of two small entrance rooms, a main big room, and in the adjacent corridor was found, with a large amount of big charred wooden beams, some posts and other wooden structures or objects in situ. More than two hundred samples of charcoal have been recovered in the temple B area and identified as wood of Alnus, Pinus, Juniperus, Populus, Ulmus, Fraxinus, Crataegus, deciduous Quercus. Also some monocotyledonous \nstructures of reeds ascribable to Arundo, which were probably used for the roofs constructions, were found. Neither Alnus, probably preferred for its high trunks, nor Populus, probably locally abundant, are generally considered as a good timber for construction
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".