MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096398077

Muge Mesolithic samples analyzed in Canada, including previously unpublished stable isotope data

2016· article· en· W7096398077 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample (material)Stable isotope ratioMesolithicRadiometric datingTable (database)Value (mathematics)Isotope
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

seems to have been erroneous (Jackes et al. 2014). A sample from Arruda 6 (Porto) was redated and the new date was found to have an improved fit with the known range of Muge Mesolithic individuals. We also wanted to understand whether the difference in the δ13C value was of any significance. Because the question arose as to whether our Muge δ13C values were from IRMS (isotope-ratio mass spectrometry) or were the ion exchange values associated with the AMS dating process, we asked Beta Analytic: “Would it be true that the δ13C values we have for the Beta dates of this period are the AMS measurements? ” (MJ in litt. 7 December 2014). Chris Patrick, Deputy Director/Technical Manager Beta Analytic, Inc. replied (in litt. 8 December 2014): This sample was done as a radiometric sample (using liquid scintillation) done on bone collagen that has been treated with alkali also. The δ13C value of-19 was an assumed value for typical bone. It was NOT measured directly on the sample. At this time not all of our samples were having the δ13C measured directly- the submitter had to opt to pay for it. The sample had been processed in 1999. Reference to the data (Umbelino 2007: 82, Table 4) suggests that varying δ13C values were in fact given for three Muge bones, from Amoreira 7,

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207