Galedra
Sign in Sign up

Claim

The Tel Shiqmona study reported that purple-dye production was probably integrated into the compound's seasonal activity cycle during complementary time windows.

Type INTERPRETIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 22976 · qualifiers {"location":"Tel Shiqmona, Israel.","time_range":"8th century BCE."}

Referenced 106 times: checked 1, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 76, shared 29. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Archaeology · 1efd24fe Ancient · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.8581 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

2 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted · 1 by the author only

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 1 of 4 · stability LOW

Main unresolved issue: 2 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:2b44220c-da47-8afb-919a-35931eb43705

Not yet independently audited.This assessment depends heavily on modeling choices.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 1 of 4 review checks has been done.Every quoted passage was confirmed on the page when Galedra fetched it.

Why?

Strongest counted support: The paper says purple-dye production was probably integrated during complementary seasonal windows. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The quoted passage directly states that purple-dye production was probably integrated into the seasonal cycle during complementary temporal windows.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Unresolved.

Hide calculation

0.8581 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · state Supported · Review checks: 1 of 4 · stability LOW · 2 sources, 1 independent lineage

Model ledger-default@0.3.0 (the default model, not the answer) · snapshot 27745 · trace sha256:f87561333cb5f3307915ed725369d76e5e506adc2a41d4e0815e39f9eedafd32

Last changed at entry seq 25678; nothing logged since has borne on this claim.

How the number was reached

Each counted link is weighed by multiplying the factors the model declares; a factor it does not declare is not shown. Every factor name below links to what that number means.

LinkWorkingWeightCounted as
b8417129 support relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1 1.800000 0.000000 (dependent strongest only, kept ea7fbaac)
ea7fbaac support relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation ARCHAEOLOGICAL 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1 1.800000 1.800000

prior 0.50 → log-odds 0.000000 + 1.800000 (the counted weights) = 1.800000 → probability 0.8581

Under neighbouring settings of the same model: 0.7790 to 0.9121, a spread of 0.1331.

Half-even rounding, six places for weights and four for the probability. The same inputs under the same model reproduce this exactly; that is what the trace hash above is for. How a score is worked out explains every factor, why it is there, and what the model sets it to.

Your view

Sign in to register whether you agree or disagree. A view is yours alone and never changes the assessment.

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

Evidence for

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

EvidenceGroupKept instead
b4e44bb9ea7fbaac

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

2 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

CheckDoneBy
qualifiers reviewedno
opposing search doneno
independence reviewedno
primary source reviewedyesb8417129, ea7fbaac

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The paper says purple-dye production was probably integrated during complementary seasonal windows. c769ebac

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. b4e44bb9

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:2b44220c-da47-8afb-919a-35931eb43705

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seqeventdetail
22976APPENDED
22977ACCEPTAUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
22992LINK_EVIDENCEby 1efd24fe (accepted)
24615TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)

Score trace

{
  "claim": "2b44220c-da47-8afb-919a-35931eb43705",
  "links": [
    {
      "kept": "89ddad64-9594-80f9-9684-5b76ea7fbaac",
      "link": "615de3bf-feb9-8d28-80e1-124eb8417129",
      "group": null,
      "reason": "dependent_strongest_only",
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "74e65bbc-eb4d-82ee-9585-6a39b4e44bb9",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "0.000000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    },
    {
      "link": "89ddad64-9594-80f9-9684-5b76ea7fbaac",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "4d5c87f1-9a95-8b22-931b-0b0dc769ebac",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "ARCHAEOLOGICAL",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "1.800000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    }
  ],
  "model": "ledger-default@0.3.0",
  "prior": "0.50",
  "variants": {
    "spread": "0.1331",
    "permissive": "0.9121",
    "conservative": "0.7790"
  },
  "code_hash": "sha256:c61a6fdf35a754a0d7e958df149036a083c0eaeb7d2d2e52704ec32b0c36def7",
  "contested": false,
  "stability": "LOW",
  "claim_type": "INTERPRETIVE",
  "config_hash": "sha256:86768038080b8ab5233f1e4b7aba10af05b5bb44caa432095150b90e81209809",
  "probability": "0.8581",
  "provisional": true,
  "evidence_sum": "1.800000",
  "snapshot_seq": 25678,
  "prior_log_odds": "0.000000",
  "support_groups": 1,
  "model_dependent": true,
  "review_coverage": "0.25",
  "truth_evaluable": true,
  "assessment_state": "SUPPORTED",
  "review_checklist": {
    "qualifiers_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "opposing_search_done": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "independence_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "primary_source_reviewed": {
      "by": [
        "615de3bf-feb9-8d28-80e1-124eb8417129",
        "89ddad64-9594-80f9-9684-5b76ea7fbaac"
      ],
      "ok": true
    }
  },
  "contradict_groups": 0,
  "rounding_boundary": false,
  "posterior_log_odds": "1.800000",
  "not_applicable_reason": null,
  "independence_unreviewed": 2
}