The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Visibility and movement: towards a GIS-based integrated approach
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
A number of locational studies of prehistoric monuments have stressed that direction of approach, and mobility more generally, can be critical in considering whether the assemblage of monument, observer and topographical location manifested certain visual affordances or not.
“Yet a number of locational studies of prehistoric monuments have stressed that direction of approach, and mobility more generally, can be critical in considering whether the assemblage of monument, observer and topographical location manifested certain visual affordances or not (e.g.Lock et al. 2014;Murrieta-Flores 2014).”
From Mapping invisibility: GIS approaches to the analysis of hiding and seclusion (2015) · cites this paper as Lock et al. 2014
By focusing upon factors such as distance and direction, questions of movement and mobility can begin to be addressed; AGL mapping would be a useful input into the generation of view-paths, visibility fields, and cost-surfaces more generally.
“Further, by focusing upon factors such as distance and direction questions of movement and mobility can begin to be addressed; indeed the AGL mapping would make a very interesting input into the generation of view-paths (e.g.Lock et al. 2014) and visibility fields (Eve and Crema 2014) not to mention cost-surfaces more generally (Wheatley and Gillings 2002, 151-159).”
From Mapping invisibility: GIS approaches to the analysis of hiding and seclusion (2015) · cites this paper as Lock et al. 2014
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Unknown, (. (2010) · Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen · doi:10.15496/publikation-3304 · Cited by 15
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- Bell, T. / Lock, G. (2000) "Topographic and Cultural Influences on Walking the Ridgeway in Later Prehistoric Times", in: G. Lock (ed.), Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, Amsterdam, 85-100.
- Conolly, J. / Lake, M. (2006) Geographical Information Systems and Archaeology, Cambridge.
- Dobres, M.-A. (2000) Technology and Social Agency, Oxford.
- Exon, S. / Gaffney, V. / Woodward, A. / Yorston, R., (2000) Stonehenge Landscapes: Journeys through Real and Imagined Landscapes, Oxford.
- Fisher, P. (1991) "First Experiments in Viewshed Uncertainty: The Accuracy of the Viewshed Area", in: Photo- grammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 57(10), 1321-1327.
- Fisher, P. (1996) "Extending the Applicability of Viewsheds in Landscape Planning", in: Photogrammetric En- gineering and Remote Sensing 62(11), 1297-1302.
- Gaffney, V. / van Leusen, M. (1995) "GIS, Environmental Determinism and Archaeology", in: G. Lock / Z. Stanc ˇic ˇ (eds.) Archae- ology and Geographic Information Systems: A European Perspective, London, 367-382.
- Green, S. (1990) "Approaching Archaeological Space: An Introduction to the Volume", in: K. Allen / S. Green / E. Zubrow (eds.), Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, London, 3-8.
- Grinsell, L. (1957) "Archaeological Gazetteer Including a List of Wiltshire Barrows, Circles and Enclosure of 'Highworth' Type, Ditches, Enclosures and Hill-forts, and Field Systems", in: R. Pugh / E. Crittall (eds.), A History of Wiltshire. Volume I, Part I, Oxford.
- Kormann, M. and Lock, G. (2014) "Exploring Differences: Implications for FCVA Visibility Indices and Scales of Analyses", in: Kamermans, H. / Godja, M. / Posluschny, A. (eds.), A Sense of the Past. Studies in Current Ar- chaeological Applications of Remote Sensing and Non-invasive Prospection Methods. Oxford: BAR International Series 2588, 147-154.
- Lee, J. / Stucky, D. (1998) "On Applying Viewshed Analysis for Determining Least-cost Paths on Digital Elevation Mod- els", in: International Journal of Geographic Information Science 12(8), 891-905.
- Llobera, M. (2000) "Understanding Movement: A Pilot Model towards the Sociology of Movement", in: G. Lock (ed.), Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies. Amsterdam, 65-84.
- Lock, G. / Harris, T. (1996) "Danebury Revisited: An English Iron Age Hillfort in a Digital Landscape", in: M. Alden- derfer / H. Maschner (eds.), Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems, New York, 214-240.
- Lock, G. / Molyneaux, B. (eds.) (2006) Confronting Scale in Archaeology: Issues of Theory and Practice, New York.
- Lock, G. / Pouncett, J. (forthcoming) "Spatial Thinking in Archaeology: Is GIS the Answer?", in E. Deweirdt / J. Bourgeois (eds.), Spatial Analysis Applied to Archaeological Sites from Protohistory to the Roman Period, Ghent.
- Madry, S. / Crumley, C. (1990) "An Application of Remote Sensing and GIS in a Regional Archaeological Settlement Pattern Analysis: The Arroux River Valley, Burgundy, France", in: K. Allen / S. Green / E. Zubrow (eds.), Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, London, 364-380.
- Pouncett, J. (2008) "The Neolithic Period", in: R. Adkins / L. Adkins / V. Leitch (eds.), The Handbook of British Archaeology, London, 36-62.
- Pouncett, J. (2013) "Expanding Horizons: Visibility, Monuments and Topography". Paper Given at the 41st Com- puter Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference (CAA 2013 Perth), 25th to 28th March 2013, Perth, Western Australia.
- Ruggles, C. / Medyckyj-Scott, D. / Gruffyd, A. (1993) "Multiple Viewshed Analysis Using GIS and its Archaeological Application: A Case Study in Northern Mull", in: J. Anderson / T. Madsen / I. Scollar (eds.), Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, CAA 92, Aarhus, 125-132.
- Wheatley, D. (1993) "Going over Old Ground: GIS, Archaeological Theory and the Act of Perception", in: T. Madsen / I. Scollar (eds.), Computing the Past: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology CAA92, Aarhus, 133-138.
- Wheatley, D. (1995) "Cumulative Viewshed Analysis: A GIS-based Method for Investigating Intervisibility, and its Archaeological Application", in: G. Lock / Z. Stanc ˇic ˇ (eds.), Archaeology and Geographic Information Systems: A European Perspective, London, 171-186.
- Wheatley, D. / Gillings, M. (2000) "Vision, Perception and GIS: Developing Enriched Approaches to the Study of Archaeologi- cal Visibility", in: G. Lock (ed.), Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, Amster- dam, 1-27.
- Wood, J. (1996) "The Geomorphological Characterisation of Digital Elevation Models", Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Leicester.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mapping invisibility: GIS approaches to the analysis of hiding and seclusion
Gillings, M. (2015) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2015.06.015 · Cited by 71
Mapping liminality: Critical frameworks for the GIS-based modelling of visibility
Gillings, M. (2017) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2017.05.004 · Cited by 38
Seifried, R. M., & Gardner, C. A. M. (2019) · Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.01.014 · Cited by 29
The importance of energetics in archaeological least cost analysis
Field, S., Glowacki, D. M., & Gettler, L. T. (2023) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-022-09564-8 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Venue
- Computational Approaches to the Study of Movement in Archaeology
- Publisher
- De Gruyter
- Published
- 2014-12-31
- Pages
- 23-42
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 1
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
