dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
The estimated credible interval does not overlap the first part of the frequentist confidence interval and results in a smaller uncertainty (38 % reduction) in comparison with the frequentist approach. This shift towards older ages almost affects the entire dataset; thus, result in the ages, which are older or younger than frequentist ages (see Mk16-4, Mk17-4, Mk16-3). Therefore, in particular scenarios, stratigraphic constraints should be applied with caution since they affect all age estimates within a sequence. In other words, here, it is not only the question of precision, but also the question of accuracy that matters when the application of such a model is attempted.
Further remarks The entire dataset from the Late Pleistocene geological units consist of thirteen samples from the east trench, 3 samples from the north trench, one sample from the southern trench, and finally, one sample from the clandestine pit known as S2. Since the stratigraphic relationship between the different trenches is not consistent, we applied Bayesian models separately on the samples from the east and the north trenches; the later results are shown in the supplementary material (Figs. S9-S10). Our observation showed that the Bayesian model in scenario IV results in more precise chronology compared to the frequentist model. For the final archaeological age interpretation, we present and discuss the results from scenario IV alongside the frequentist chronology. ka (95 % confidence interval, frequentist approach).
The Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe (INSPIRE) Directive (  2007 ) requires public organisations across Europe to share environmentally-related spatial datasets to support decision making and management of the environment. Despite the environmental focus of INSPIRE, it offers limited guidance for archaeological datasets. Most primary data is created outside, but ultimately curated within, the public sector. As spatial evidence from fieldwork activities is not considered by the Directive, it overlooks a range of barriers to sharing data, such as project-based fieldwork, a lack of data standards, and formatting and licencing variations. This paper submits that these challenges are best addressed through the formalised management of primary research data through an archaeological Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI).
INSPIRE sets down the general rules for sharing environmentally-related spatial datasets to support environmental policies and decision making across Europe through an SDI. An SDI may be defined as 'the relevant base collection of technologies, policies and institutional arrangements that facilitate the availability of and access to spatial data'. The SDI provides a basis for spatial data discovery, evaluation and application for users and providers within all levels of government, the commercial sector, the non-profit sector, academia and by citizens in general'  [13]. Data should be discoverable through metadata catalogues and published as view (Web Map/WMS) and download (Web Feature/WFS) services. INSPIRE identifies 34 thematic datasets  [14]  relevant to the stewardship of the environment of which only one, The Protected Sites theme, specifically addresses historic environment data.
The guidance empowers local authority archaeology services to advise on the protection of archaeology within the planning process. In 2016-2017, 8% of all planning applications in Scotland monitored by the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (ALGAO) members required archaeological mitigation  [17]. The technical specifications for the Protected Sites theme define a very limited set of attributes and values covering a broad range of datasets for both the historic and natural environment which are suitable for general use but do not capture the full complexity of archaeological data. More tailored approaches are required to model the complexity of archaeological data. Germany developed the Archaeological Data eXport Standard (ADeX) to address the need to share common attributes across the culturally independent Federal States for large research and infrastructure projects  [18, 19].
In recognising the benefits offered by an SDI for rendering data interoperable, and the limitations of the existing technical specifications within INSPIRE  [15] , Fernández Freire et al. [20]  proposed a much richer data model for Spanish archaeological datasets. Many countries routinely publish richer attribution in their spatial data than required by INSPIRE, or provide links to further online resources such as webpages or structured data in JSON, GeoJSON or XML format  [21].
Events, such as excavations or surveys, are implicit within early inventory systems. With the development of computerised records and Geographic Information Systems (GIS), the need for more sophisticated data models to explicitly document an event becomes apparent. Events may relate to one or more records in the database. Occasionally an event may not lead to the definition of a monument record. 'Events' is a catch-all term for activities that document our past, including a range of remote sensing techniques, aerial photograph transcriptions of archaeological features revealed as cropmarks, field survey and field walking, and full-scale excavation. Whereas the core values for documenting a monument include location, age and classification, event documentation should include as a minimum what type of work was undertaken, by whom and when it took place, as well as the location and extent of the work.
The Event-Monument model is well established across Historic Environment Records in Britain. Commercially available software packages include HBSMR  [23]  and ARCHES  [24] , to manage Event data within the context of Monument records. In Wales, the four Archaeological Trusts use Archwilio  [25]  to manage and publish their inventories in a single portal. However, the natural focus of online publication remains the monument (the Protected Site) rather than the activity. The value of primary data are left in supporting role informing interpretation rather developed as separate but related geospatial time series resources.
The use of OASIS is voluntary for other research. OASIS users can upload a digital copy of the project report with an option to transfer a digital boundary file. The project report and data may be downloaded by the relevant local authority archaeological service and the national record. A copy of the project report may be available online through these records or through the Archaeology Data Service Library [32] and ArchSearch catalogue  [33]. In Northern Ireland completion of an OASIS form is part of granting an excavation licence  [34]. In Flanders  [35]  and Sweden  [36]  it is a legal requirement to provide digital copies of project reports and other data. Since 2016, it has been a legal requirement in Flanders for all archaeologists (both commercial and academic) to submit intermediate and final reports, including the digital extents of the project, to the Flanders Heritage Agency.
Failure to submit has serious consequences for spatial planning initiatives  [35]. Two publicly accessible digital layers are created: archeologienota's and nota's (reports of preliminary research) and eindverslagen (final reports), offering a geographic view of the data [37], a more traditional alphanumeric search interface  [38]  or geospatial geometries as downloads or WMS services  [39]. The Swedish National Heritage Board require that all archaeological projects ordered by the County Administrative Boards, in effect all excavations and most of the surveys, must now be registered in the Historic Environment Record as downloadable spatial data with the perimeter of the project and excavated trenches, as well as certain administrative metadata. Submitted project reports are available to the public through an e-archive.
Spatial Data and the Technique-Dependent Challenges within Archaeological Fieldwork Archaeologists should as a matter of practice provide accurate spatial data from their research for reuse in archaeological inventory systems. This event data should be collated and shared online to act as a spatial finding aid to material deposited in archives. Minimum documentation should include who undertook what type of work, when and where. In record systems, the location (where) is often recorded as a coordinate rather than represented by the spatial extent of the activity. Additional metadata, which can be recorded as part of a spatial dataset, is technique dependent. For more sophisticated techniques such as remote sensing surveys, essential documentation should also include the instrumentation used to collect data and the processes applied to transform that data.
Excavation As a destructive process excavation and related approaches are argued to be 'preservation by record'  [40, 41] , in which case it is essential that the record is firstly preserved but also findable, accessible and reusable through record and archival systems. Excavations may be undertaken for research and community engagement, but particularly in response to planning applications by a range of organisations often using their own recording systems. Knowing exactly where investigations took place and the character of the archaeological remains are fundamental to the recording process. The project area, location of trenches opened and features recorded are provided as illustrations within the report. However the raster format of most pdf reports hinders easy reuse in a GIS. The project archive may contain plans, databases and spreadsheets in reusable formats but the archive is often not easily accessible.
Where the data can be accessed, individual recording methodologies can further frustrate reuse. The benefits of a standardised approach have been recognised in France where most 'preventive' excavations are undertaken by the Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives (INRAP), although since 2003 a number of private companies also offer archaeological services. In 2018, INRAP undertook 1934 assessments and 225 excavations across France and its overseas departments using a standardised recording system. As well as documenting the excavation and satisfying planning requirements, INRAP recognised the value of data as contributing to scientific research and public welfare  [42]. Since 2011, INRAP has invested in an extensive GIS training programme to record fieldwork. Moving from a localised recording tool to an organisation-wide application highlighted several problems, including how to define and harmonise data collection to ensure data could be easily shared  [42].
The result is a tightly-defined specification for six separate layers of spatial data (Table  1 ) (Figure  1 ), all using Lambert93 (EPSG code 2154) based on the legal geodetic reference system RDF93-the French version of ETRS89. 1. Each feature has a unique ID corresponding to the ID in the related archaeological database. Where possible, standardised terminologies reference the PACTOLS thesaurus  [43, 44]  thereby meeting Semantic Web and Open Science standards. A hyperlink from the GIS takes the user to related resources on Dolia-the online catalogue and digital library of INRAP  [45]. Currently, public access is restricted to locational data, rather than the full spatial extents on INRAP's Archaeozoom platform  [46] , or as one of the datasets on the ARIADNE portal  [47]. At present, the INRAP approach is not used universally across France.
Their system does not include project data from commercial companies or data from university research. Data from 20th-century projects, captured in the PATRIARCHE system will be available through the Pleade Portal  [48, 49]  but again not integrated into a national excavation dataset. Nevertheless, the INRAP approach provides a model for the organisation of geospatial data from excavation greatly reducing the challenges of integrating non-conforming data and legacy data into geospatial databases. By investing in data standards and a robust training programme, there is a consistent approach to data recording and management from INRAP's excavations. Elsewhere in Europe, a deregulated approach to excavations has resulted in multiple approaches to documentation, creating barriers to the reuse of data.
Airborne Mapping In many countries, there has been a long tradition of recognising and mapping (transcribing) individual archaeological sites from oblique and vertical aerial photographs. Computerised rectification programmes transformed the laborious manual process of transcribing archaeological features from aerial imagery. The need for consistent representation of mapped features emerged when data from these processes were combined within a GIS to move from a site-focused understanding to a seamless view of the archaeological landscape (Figure  2 )  [51]. During the 1990s, Historic England, The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) (now part of Historic Environment Scotland) and The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales (RCAHMW), embarked on large-scale mapping programmes of cropmarks.
The technical metadata requirements for documenting these surveys are well established and are outlined in the Archaeology Data Service/Digital Antiquity Guides to Good Practice for Remote Sensing  [58]. The metadata is published as part of the project report. However, in England and Scotland metadata may be entered through the OASIS form by the practitioner. The metadata can then be exported to the Historic England Geophysics database  [60]  ensuring that the database is updated without additional rekeying or miskeying of data. The database enables users to find where surveys took place but does not record the extent of those surveys. Simply linking the metadata already provided as attribution for the spatial extents would create a powerful map index, enabling viewers to easily discover the area that has been surveyed and to what resolution.
Geophysical surveys produce spatial datasets documenting the location and extent, results and interpretation for each method used (Table  2 ). In Britain, some local authority archaeologists receive a georeferenced raster of the survey products that can be used directly in their GIS, though any vector and raw data is often retained by the practitioner. Where vector data is accessible, practitioners are rarely consistent in their transcription and categorisation of either the geophysical or archaeological anomalies. Again, the lack of standardised vocabularies hinders interoperability between data provided by different practitioners. Although there is guidance on the practice  [61]  and archiving  [58]  of geophysical survey data, there is no consistent approach to labelling interpretation data with agreed terminologies.
Many countries have made publicly funded LiDAR or Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) data conforming to INSPIRE Annex II Elevation Theme specifications  [62] , available under a range of licencing conditions. Examples of portals where data may be downloaded under Open licences include England  [63] , Scotland  [64] , Wales  [65] , Ireland  [66]  and Flanders  [67]. Elsewhere, access and reuse is more closely managed. Although LiDAR derived data is available for the whole of Germany, Federal States adopted different approaches to releasing data. In Northrhine-Westfalia the data may be freely downloaded at 1m resolution, but in Hesse, a comparable dataset may be used within the governmental bodies like the State Heritage Service, whereas the public pay to access the data. A list of available Open LiDAR data sources was compiled by Kokalj and Hesse in 2017 with the caveat that "Host sites will inevitably change and new datasets are becoming available regularly, so use your favourite search engine"  [68] , (p.
13). These sources are discoverable through the INSPIRE Geoportal  [69]  but, as invaluable research data for archaeologists, could be signposted from the ARIADNE portal  [47]. LiDAR data may be manipulated to create a series of visualised datasets including hillshade and Sky View Factor (SVF). Visualisations enable archaeologists and others without extensive technical knowledge to visually examine the data under different conditions. Visualisations may be created for project purposes through tools such as the Relief Visualisation Toolkit  [68, 70] , or created once and shared with both archaeologists and the wider geospatial community. In Sweden, hillshade and SVF visualisations are available as layers in the public search portal of the Historic Environment Record  [71]. However, access to the LiDAR data for analysis and processing requires purchasing it from the government's Land Survey Agency.
In Belgium, The Flanders Heritage Agency created multidirectional hillshade and SVF visualisations from Open LiDAR data commissioned by another Flemish Government agency, Information Flanders. In turn, these visualisations have been published under an Open Data license allowing free reuse, even for commercial purposes, as long as attribution is respected  [67, 72]. For many users it is often sufficient to know the date of capture, resolution, ownership and licencing conditions. For visualisations of the raw data as Digital Surface Models (DSMs) or Digital Terrain Models (DTMs), Doneus and Briese  [73]  identified several factors that "have a considerable impact on the quality and usability of the final result" for archaeological research in areas of afforestation (Table  3 ). "Without that knowledge, ALS becomes a kind of 'black box', where the derived DTM is used without further knowledge of underlying technology, algorithms, and metadata.
The Case for an Archaeological Spatial Data Infrastructure The fundamental issues of long-term data preservation, archival challenges and accessibility are being addressed through the SEADDA (Saving European Archaeological Data from the Digital Dark Ages) COST Action  [27]. European initiatives do address aggregating data from multiple organisations, but the emphasis is firmly on the cultural significance of an object or site rather than its spatial value in a landscape context. Europeana  [80]  provides access to a wealth of digital imagery and virtual collections. ARIADNE  [47]  and its successor project ARIADNE Plus  [81]  is building a digital infrastructure that pools data from multiple contributors to create a European wide interoperable dataset. ARIADNE recognizes that there is a wealth of accumulated knowledge of individuals, teams and institutions that forms a vast and fragmented corpus but that their potential has been constrained by difficult access and non-homogenous perspectives.
The technological solutions applied enable users to cross-search multiple datasets through gazetteer and map-based searches to find information about a site or object held in a collection. Users can drill down to data but then cannot explore the spatial relationships between results. ARIADNE provides a digital infrastructure and uses some location-based searching but it is not an SDI; that is the full spatial value of the data is not realised. Development of an archaeological SDI, complementing existing infrastructures, would address a knowledge gap and add value to existing research data initiatives through map-based indexes.
Data Themes Inventories represent the collected knowledge and interpretation of locations derived from evidence (the archive) provided by events and other sources. Through online database and Web-GIS systems, public perception, and the understanding of many archaeologists, is that the archaeological record is site-focused, with individual event descriptions contributing to the narrative or biography of individual records. This perspective undervalues the importance of primary event data as separate but related resources. The event data represents time-series information-unique observations in time and place which may relate to one or more sites. With the landscape approach being developed for remote sensing surveys, it is all the more critical to recognise data from these projects as resources in their own right rather than as an adjunct to the site record.
As spatial data, it must be discoverable, accessible and reusable in its own right. The potential of these spatial datasets remains largely unrealised, with few systematic efforts to collate and publish data from different sources at a regional or national scale. Datasets for consideration should include, but not be restricted to, the range of invasive and non-invasive techniques reviewed above. The SDI also needs to define approaches to 3D data generated from surface modelling, excavations and the built heritage. Each dataset should be supported by the minimum technical specifictions documenting the character of the data. These specifications should not constrain innovation in reuse and analysis. Development of the SDI must be supported by investment in training and promotion including celebrating best practice.
Framework Through INSPIRE, there is already a robust infrastructure for delivering public sector environmental data. Opensource (e. g. , Geoserver and Mapserver) and proprietary (e. g. , ArcGIS Server and ERDAS Apollo) software platforms provide for managing data internally and publishing online. The technical guidance for building and publishing View and Download Services is well established for both vector and raster datasets. What is lacking is the mandate or requirement to standardise and share data between different branches of the profession. To make the case for a step-change in how we manage spatial data from primary research, we need exemplar datasets to demonstrate how standardising and sharing spatial data can deliver efficiencies across the profession for the benefit of the wider society.
Hosting To compile data from multiple sources, several factors must be considered. First and foremost is who should publish the data. Archival structures are designed to organise projects within collections reinforcing the project-based character of fieldwork. Emphasis is on preservation and reuse at a project level. Archives accrue data but generally have no requirement to develop additional geospatial geometries from separate projects through integration into a single dataset. A notable exception is the National Library of Scotland Map Library whose online map catalogues provide access to georeferenced historic mapping in addition to individual images of maps in their collection  [83, 84]. Creation of searchable spatial indexes to collections through integrating key data could act as an invaluable finding aid in web browsers, signposting users to additional resources in the archives.
Such initiatives are often project-driven or the inspiration of driven individuals. For instance, the Canadian Archaeological Radiocarbon Database (CARD), maintained by the Canadian Museum of History and the Laboratory of Archaeology University of British Colombia, collates data from multiple sources into a single database  [85]. However, the long-term viability of such initiatives needs to be supported beyond project funding or enthusiasm. Under INSPIRE, the organisation managing mandated Protected Sites data has a clear duty to publish that data. There is no such requirement for primary data from archaeological research. Efficiency dictates that similarly-themed data should be collated and published as a single dataset rather than published by multiple data owners. Currently, there is no legal requirement to collate and publish archaeological event data spatially.