CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is There a Research Design Role for Sensitivity Analysis (SA) in Archaeological Modeling?

Lovis, William A.·2016·Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-27833-9_2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-27833-9_2

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Andres, T. (2010). Sensitivity analysis. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 1340–1341). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  2. Baxter, M. J. (1994). Exploratory multivariate analysis in archaeology. Edinburgh, England: Edinburgh University Press.
  3. Beekman, C. S., & Baden, W. W. (Eds.). (2005). Non-linear models for archaeology and anthropology. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
  4. Bernard, R. N. (1999). Using adaptive agent-based simulation models to assist planners in policy development: The case of rent control. Working paper 99-07-052. Santa Fe, NM: Santa Fe Institute.
  5. Bevan, A., & Wilson, A. (2013). Models of settlement hierarchy based on partial evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 2415–2427. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Binford, L. R. (1978). Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic.
  7. Borello, M. (2005). The rise, fall and resurrection of group selection. Endeavour, 29(1), 43–47. · DOI
  8. Brouwer Burg, M. (2016). GIS-based modeling of archaeological dynamics: Strengths, weaknesses, and the utility of sensitivity analysis. In Brouwer Burg, H. Peeters, & W. A. Lovis (Eds.), Uncertainty and sensitivity in archaeological computational modeling. New York: Springer.
  9. Carr, C. (1985a). Perspective and basic definitions. In C. Carr (Ed.), For concordance in archaeological analysis, bridging data structure, quantitative technique and theory (pp. 1–17). Prospect Heights, NY: Waveland Press.
  10. Carr, C. (1985b). Getting into data: Philosophy and tactics for the analysis of complex data structures. In C. Carr (Ed.), For concordance in archaeological analysis, bridging data structure, quantitative technique and theory (pp. 18–44). Prospect Heights, NY: Waveland Press.
  11. Carroll, J. (2016). In M. Brouwer Burg, H. Peeters, & W. A. Lovis (Eds.), Uncertainty and sensitivity in archaeological computational modeling. New York: Springer.
  12. Clarke, D. L. (1970). Models in archaeology. London: Methuen.
  13. Costopoulos, A., & Lake, M. W. (Eds.). (2010). Simulating change: Archaeology into the twenty-first century, foundations of archaeological inquiry. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
  14. Costopoulos, A., Lake, M. W., & Gupta, N. (2010). Introduction. In A. Costopoulos & M. Lake (Eds.), Simulating change: Archaeology into the twenty-first century (foundations of archaeological inquiry) (pp. 1–8). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
  15. Crooks, A. T., & Heppenstall, A. J. (2012). Introduction to agent-based modeling. In A. J. Heppenstall, A. T. Crooks, L. M. See, & M. Batty (Eds.), Agent-based models of geographical systems (pp. 85–108). New York: Springer. · DOI
  16. Doran, J. (1970). Systems theory, computer simulations, and archaeology. Special issue: Analysis. World Archaeology, 1(3), 289–298. · DOI
  17. Doran, J. (1999). Prospects for agent based modelling in archaeology. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 10, 33–44.
  18. Doran, J. (2008). Review of: The model based archaeology of socionatural systems. In T. A. Kohler & S. E. van der Leeuw (Eds.), Socializing complexity: Approaches to power and interaction in archaeological discourse. In S. Kohring & S. Wyne-Jones (Eds.), Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. Retrieved March 19, 2014, from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/11/3/reviews/doran.html .
  19. Doran, J. (2011). Review of: Simulating change: Archaeology into the twenty-first century (foundations of archaeological inquiry). In A. Costopoulos & M. W. Lake (Eds.), Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. Retrieved December 02, 2014, from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/14/4/reviews/2.html .
  20. Evans, A. (2012). Uncertainty and error. In A. J. Heppenstall, A. T. Crooks, L. M. See, & M. Batty (Eds.), Agent-based models of geographical systems (pp. 309–346). New York: Springer. · DOI
  21. Fayyad, U., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., & Padhraic, S. (1996). From data mining to knowledge discovery in databases. Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 11(3), 37–53.
  22. Gilbert, N. (2008). Agent based models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Research Methods. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Hamby, D. M. (1994). A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 32, 135–154. · DOI
  24. Hegmon, M. (2003). Setting theoretical egos aside: Issues and theory in North American archaeology. American Antiquity, 68, 213–243. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Henrickson, L., & McKelvey, B. (2002). Foundations of “New” social science: Institutional legitimacy from philosophy, complexity science, postmodernism, and agent-based modeling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(Suppl. 3), 7288–7295. · DOI
  26. Heppenstall, A. J., Crooks, A. T., See, L. M., & Batty, M. (Eds.). (2012). Agent-based models of geographical systems. New York: Springer.
  27. Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 . · DOI · Paper page
  28. Jankowski, P., Andrienko, N., & Andrienko, G. (2010). Map centered exploratory approach to multiple criteria spatial decision making. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(2), 101–127. · DOI
  29. Jochim, M. (1976). Hunter-gatherer subsistence and settlement: A predictive model. New York: Academic.
  30. Kurzer, G., Kowarik, K., & Reschreiter, H. (Eds.). (2015). Agent based modeling and simulation in archaeology. New York: Springer.
  31. Lake, M. W. (2014). Trends in archaeological simulation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 21, 258–278. · DOI
  32. Lovis, W. A., Arbogast, A. F., & Monaghan, G. W. (2012a). The geoarchaeology of Lake Michigan Coastal Dunes. Environmental research series no. 2. East Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Transportation, Michigan State University Press.
  33. Lovis, W. A., Monaghan, G. W., Arbogast, A. F., & Forman, S. L. (2012a). Differential temporal and spatial preservation of archaeological sites in a great lakes coastal zone. American Antiquity, 77(3), 591–608. · DOI
  34. Merton, R. K. (1949). On sociological theories of the middle range. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social structure (pp. 39–53). New York: Simon & Schuster/The Free Press.
  35. Monaghan, G. W., Arbogast, A. F., Lovis, W. A., & Kowalski, D. (2013). Millennial-scale cycles of coastal dune formation during the Late Holocene, Lake Michigan. North-Central GSA Section Meeting. Abstracts with Programs, 45(4), 67.
  36. Myhrvold, N. P. (2013). Revisiting the estimation of dinosaur growth rates. PLOS ONE, 16, 2013. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081917 . · DOI
  37. Ngo, T. A., & See, L. M. (2012). Calibration and validation of agent-based models of landcover change. In A. J. Heppenstall, A. T. Crooks, L. M. See, & M. Batty (Eds.), Agent-based models of geographical systems (pp. 181–198). New York: Springer. · DOI
  38. Peeters, H., & Romeijn, J.-W. (2016). Uncertainty in exploratory computational modeling in archaeology: A case study between theory and practice. In M. Brouwer Burg, H. Peeters, & W. A. Lovis (Eds.), Uncertainty and sensitivity in archaeological computational modeling. New York: Springer. · DOI
  39. Premo, L. S. (2010). Equifinality and explanation: The role of agent-based modeling in postpositivist archaeology. In A. Costopoulos & M. Lake (Eds.), Simulating change: Archaeology into the twenty-first century, foundations of archaeological inquiry (pp. 28–37). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
  40. Raab, L. M., & Goodyear, A. C. (1984). Middle-range theory in archaeology: A critical review of origins and applications. American Antiquity, 49, 255–268. · DOI
  41. Renfrew, C. (1981). The simulator as demiurge. In J. Sabloff (Ed.), Simulations in archaeology (pp. 283–306). Albuquerque, NM: The University of New Mexico Press.
  42. Rogers, E. (1962). The Round Lake Ojibwa. Occasional paper 5. Toronto, ON: Royal Ontario Museum, University of Toronto.
  43. Schiffer, M. B. (1976). Behavioral archaeology. New York: Academic.
  44. Stanilov, K. (2012). Space in agent-based models. In A. J. Heppenstall, A. T. Crooks, L. M. See, & M. Batty (Eds.), Agent-based models of geographical systems (pp. 253–269). New York: Springer. · DOI
  45. Whallon, R. (2006). Social networks and information: Non-“utilitarian” mobility among hunter-gatherers. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 25, 259–270. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Whallon, R. (2011). An introduction to information and its role in hunter gatherer bands. In R. Whallon, W. A. Lovis, & R. K. Hitchcock (Eds.), The role of information in hunter-gatherer bands (Ideas, debates and perspectives 5, pp. 1–28). Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California.
  47. White, A. (2016). In M. Brouwer Burg, H. Peeters, & W. A. Lovis (Eds.), Uncertainty and sensitivity in archaeological computational modeling. New York: Springer.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1

Metadata

Authors
Lovis, W. A.
Venue
Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2016
Pages
21-36
ISSN
1568-2722
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-27833-9_2
Cited by
1
References
1
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is There a Research Design Role for Sensitivity Analysis (SA) in Archaeological Modeling? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/978-3-319-27833-9_2
The paper
Lovis, W. A. (2016). Is There a Research Design Role for Sensitivity Analysis (SA) in Archaeological Modeling? Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27833-9_2