ArticlePloS one2024
Ambiguous landscapes: A framework for assessing robustness and uncertainties in archaeological point pattern analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Landscape research in archaeology has greatly benefited from the increasing application of computational methods over the last decades. Spatial statistical methods such as point pattern analysis have been particularly revolutionary. Archaeologists have used point pattern analysis to explore spatial arrangements and relations between 'points' (e.g., locations of artefacts or archaeological sites). However, the results obtained from these techniques can be greatly affected by the uncertainty coming from the fragmentary nature of archaeological data, their irregular distribution in the landscape, and the working methods used to study them. Furthermore, the quantification of uncertainty in spatial data coming from non-systematic surveys has never been fully addressed. To overcome this challenge, archaeologists have increasingly relied on applying advanced methods from statistics, data science, and geography. While the application of advanced methods from formal sciences will provide robustness to models based on uncertain datasets, as with uncertainty, robustness must be assessed in relation to the case study, the regional context, and the methods used. These issues are of great importance when the models from advanced methods are directly used to create narratives about past landscapes. In this paper, we gather previous research on uncertainty quantification in archaeology and formalize its best practices into a framework to assess robustness and uncertainty in spatial statistical models, particularly focusing on one commonly used in the discipline, i.e., the Pair Correlation Function. This framework allows us to understand better how incomplete data affect a model, quantify the model uncertainties, and assess the robustness of the results achieved with spatial point processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.