The DOI matches its Crossref record.
9. Dealing with uncertainty in archaeological prediction
Abstract
The Netherlands is one of the few countries in Europe where predictive models, used to predict archaeological site location in order to guide future developments in the modern landscape, play an important role in cultural heritage management. While many scholars consider the application of predictive models for this purpose highly controversial, the contributors to this volume bring together their insights into strategic research in developing new methods for predictive modelling and applied, interdisciplinary 'action research' focusing on how the models are, or should be, used by stakeholders in cultural heritage management in the Netherlands.
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?
Current practice still relies on either inductive or deductive modeling, not on approaches where both are combined.
“While these may successfully be combined with statistical methods (Verhagen 2006;van Leusen et al. 2009), current practice still relies on either inductive or deductive modeling, not on approaches where both are combined.”
From Integrating Archaeological Theory and Predictive Modeling: a Live Report from the Scene (2012) · cites this paper as van Leusen et al. 2009
Standard methods for survey data filtering do not exist, even though the statistical basis for it is well developed and can be relatively easily applied to predictive modeling.
“However, standard methods for survey data”
From Integrating Archaeological Theory and Predictive Modeling: a Live Report from the Scene (2012) · cites this paper as van Leusen et al. 2009
Greater attention is now given to Open Science and documentation of data processing, quality issues in archaeological databases throughout the research process, the impact of uncertainty on interpretation and prediction, and the potential for data re-use.
“Greater attention is now given to Open Science and documentation of data processing (Marwick et al. 2017) as well as quality issues in archaeological databases throughout the research process, the impact of uncertainty on interpretation and prediction (Van Leusen, Millard, and Ducke 2009), and the potential for data re-use.”
From What We See, What We Don’t See: Data Governance, Archaeological Spatial Databases and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in an Age of Big Data (2020) · cites this paper as Van Leusen, Millard, and Ducke 2009
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Integrating Archaeological Theory and Predictive Modeling: a Live Report from the Scene
Verhagen, P., & Whitley, T. G. (2012) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-011-9102-7 · Cited by 190
Gupta, N., Blair, S., & Nicholas, R. (2020) · Journal of Field Archaeology · doi:10.1080/00934690.2020.1713969 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Leusen, M. V., Millard, A. R., & Ducke, B.
- Venue
- Archaeological Prediction and Risk Management
- Publisher
- Leiden University Press
- Published
- 2009-12-31
- Pages
- 123-161
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
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
