The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Developing computational approaches for the study of movement: assessing the role of visibility and landscape markers in terrestrial navigation during Iberian Late Prehistory
Abstract
Developing computational approaches for the study of movement: assessing the role of visibility and landscape markers in terrestrial navigation during Iberian Late Prehistory was published in Computational Approaches to the Study of Movement in Archaeology on page 99.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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 Murrieta-Flores 2014
Citations
Cites
Assessing the level of visibility of cultural objects in past landscapes
Ogburn, D. E. (2006) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2005.08.005 · Cited by 185
Zigzagging: Theoretical insights on climbing strategies
Llobera, M., & Sluckin, T. J. (2007) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.07.020 · Cited by 103
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
Metadata
- Venue
- Computational Approaches to the Study of Movement in Archaeology
- Publisher
- De Gruyter
- Published
- 2014-12-31
- Pages
- 99-132
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 2
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
