TOPORUL DE LA BORDENII MARI (JUD. PRAHOVA) ŞI CÂTEVA PRECIZĂRI DE NATURĂ TEHNOLOGICĂ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shaft‑hole axe was found with a metal detector in a forest on the territory of Bordenii Mari, Prahova County, near the Mislea River. It represents an isolated find. On the basis of its appearance and typological features, we consider it to be an artefact specific to the middle of the 3rd millennium BC, having analogues among the shaft‑hole axes attributed by Alexandru Vulpe to the Veselinovo II and Pătulele types. The axe was cast in a closed bivalve mould, with the metal being introduced into the mould most probably through a gate on the upper edge of the axe blade, near the shaft‑hole, a technological process used mainly in the second quarter of the 3rd millennium BC. A significant piece is missing from the butt of the axe, a fact also observed in other contemporary axes. The appearance of the socket was most likely the result of an intentional action, either it was shaped this way during casting or it was later damaged and finished. We are tempted to give more credit to the first variant, based on imaging and microscopic observations. No crack was detected in the socket walls, no impact marks, but only striations on the edge of the missing area due to a smoothing action. How much time passed between the manufacture of the axe and its deposition is directly related to the significance with which it was invested from the very first moments of its existence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".