Siedlungen der Zarubincy-Kultur. Einige Bemerkungen zur Besiedlung des Mitteldnjepr-, Oberdnjepr- und Polesien Gebiets während der jüngeren vorrömischen Eisen- und frühen Römischen Kaiserzeit / Settlements of the Zarubincy culture. Some remarks on the settlement of the Middle Dnieper, Upper Dnieper, and Polesia regions during the younger pre-Roman Iron Age and early Roman Imperial periods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following article discusses the settlements of the Zarubincy culture. To date, more than 200 settlements have been discovered in the middle and upper Dnieper region. Of these, 24 sites are fortified settlements and 190 are open settlements. Approximately 34% of all sites have been excavated or examined by soundings; the remaining sites are known only through field research. Various archaeological finds were discovered in the settlements investigated through archaeological excavations: houses (surface and pit houses), fireplaces, pits, outbuildings, etc. The archaeological material found in the settlements includes clay vessels, tools, clothing accessories, weapons, coins, archaeological and archaeological materials. Regarding the origin of the Zarubincy culture, I assume that the above-mentioned cultural aspect represents a cultural syncretism between the traditions of the natives and the newly arrived – Central European – cultures. Regarding the chronology and periodization of the younger pre-Roman Iron Age and early Roman Imperial period in the middle and upper Dnieper region, I believe that the chronological boundaries of the settlements of the classical phase of the Zarubincy culture lie between the first quarter of the 2nd century BC and the beginning of the 1st century AD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".