Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the discovery and investigation in 2006-2013 of the remains of a palisade that enclosed the royal mounds and rune stones in Jelling, the interpretation of the monument complex and its development through time has changed considerably. From having been perceived mainly as a place of burial and commemoration in the tenth century, it is today regarded as a ritual and ceremonial space, which was located in a landscape on which it seems to have had little immediate impact, either in terms of settlement patterns or burial customs. . In its entirety, the complex gives the impression of a meticulously planned layout that was based upon strict architectural and geometric principles, which appear to have been established and maintained over several decades. Whilst much was new or built on a vastly exaggerated scale, the structural and ideological references embedded in the monuments suggest that the meaning and function of the place rested upon far more than innovative thinking and physical dimensions, or the implied control of manpower and natural resources. In this chapter, the results of the many investigations and research initiatives presented in this volume are summarised as a prelude to the discussion of the purpose of the enclosure, and the wider implications of the successive additions to the monuments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".