MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131937957

The palisade and gate

2024· article· en· W7131937957 on OpenAlexaff
Steen Andersen, Mads Dengsø Jessen, Charlotta Lindblom, Anne Pedersen

Bibliographic record

VenueMinistry of Culture Research Portal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Architecture and Urbanism
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDitchLine (geometry)Layer (electronics)LodeVariation (astronomy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The palisade is by far the largest element of the tenth-century monument complex at Jelling. Its size alone is impressive, but equally remarkable is the geometric precision and the enormous timber consumption, which can be determined from the archaeological evidence. The most significant stretches are in the north, where the length of the northern line has been precisely determined by the two identified corners, respectively in the north-west and north-east, and in the east. Shorter parts have been investigated to the west and south, and have made it possible to determine the course of all four sides of the palisade and establish the approximate location of the two southern corners. There is considerable variation in the level of preservation of the individual sections. In the northern part of the area the topsoil layer was thin, and the palisade ditch took the form of a continuous dark course against the background of light yellow subsoil. The southern part is much better preserved, and the dimensions of individual planks and posts could be recorded. In the pond Smededammen oak timbers were still preserved in the waterlogged, oxygen-lacking bottom layers of the pond. The chapter begins with a description of the appearance and construction of the palisade, followed by a discussion of a gate to the north and evidence of transportation in the landscape. Finally, the dating of the overall structure is summarised.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinistry of Culture Research PortalSame topicHistorical Architecture and UrbanismFrench-language works237,207