Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33986304›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Evaluating machine learning techniques for archaeological lithic sourcing: a case study of flint in Britain.

Tom Elliot, Robert Morse, Duane Smythe, Ashley Norris

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tom ElliotDepartment of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, 12-14 Abercromby Square, Liverpool, L69 7WZ, UK. t.elliot@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5249-2671
Robert MorseIntelligent Ultrasound, Floor 6A, Hodge House, 114-116 St Mary Street, Cardiff, CF10 1DY, UK.
Duane SmytheDepartment of Earth Sciences, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3AN, UK.
Ashley NorrisNorris Scientific, PO Box 812, Kingston, TAS, 7050, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2534-0381

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is 50 years since Sieveking et al. published their pioneering research in Nature on the geochemical analysis of artefacts from Neolithic flint mines in southern Britain. In the decades since, geochemical techniques to source stone artefacts have flourished globally, with a renaissance in recent years from new instrumentation, data analysis, and machine learning techniques. Despite the interest over these latter approaches, there has been variation in the quality with which these methods have been applied. Using the case study of flint artefacts and geological samples from England, we present a robust and objective evaluation of three popular techniques, Random Forest, K-Nearest-Neighbour, and Support Vector Machines, and present a pipeline for their appropriate use. When evaluated correctly, the results establish high model classification performance, with Random Forest leading with an average accuracy of 85% (measured through F1 Scores), and with Support Vector Machines following closely. The methodology developed in this paper demonstrates the potential to significantly improve on previous approaches, particularly in removing bias, and providing greater means of evaluation than previously utilised.

Identifiers

PMID33986304
PMCPMC8119680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.