Dating the funerary use of caves in Liguria (northwestern Italy) from the Neolithic to historic times: Results from a large-scale AMS campaign on \nhuman skeletal series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multidisciplinary research team of this new project aimed at the chronological, anthropological and funerary behavior characterization of the skeletal remains unearthed from various caves in western Liguria \n(northwestern Italy) between the mid-1800s and the 1990s. Most of the burials and scattered bone assemblages \nwere excavated prior to the development of modern stratigraphic methods, or come from disturbed contexts, \noften resulting in a vague chrono-cultural attribution. We present here the results of a systematic dating project \nthat produced 130 new AMS dates on human bone samples (documented burials or individuals from scattered \nremains) from sixteen Ligurian caves, including most of the skeletal series from renowned sites such as Arene \nCandide Cave and Grotta Pollera. \nResults highlighted the funerary use of these caves from the last quarter of the sixth millennium BCE to the \nCommon Era, with the majority of results clustering in the first half of the fifth millennium BCE. These dates \nallow for an initial assessment of patterns in Neolithic mortuary use of Ligurian caves, and aided in particular the \ncharacterization of funerary practices during the Square Mouthed Pottery culture
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".