| Title |
Quality Assurance in Archaeological Survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10816-016-9274-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. B. Banning, Alicia L. Hawkins, S. T. Stewart, P. Hitchings, S. Edwards |
| Abstract |
To have confidence in the results of an archaeological survey, whether for heritage management or research objectives, we must have some assurance that the survey was carried out to a reasonably high standard. This paper discusses the use of Quality Assurance (QA) approaches and empirical methods for estimating surveys' effectiveness at discovering archaeological artifacts as a means for ensuring quality standards. We illustrate with the example of two surveys in Cyprus and Jordan in which resurvey, measurement of surveyor "sweep widths," and realistic estimates of survey coverage allow us to evaluate explicitly the probability that the survey missed pottery or lithics, as well as to decide when survey has been thorough enough to warrant moving to another survey unit. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 15% |
| Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 7 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Arts and Humanities | 23 | 39% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 24% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 September 2022.
All research outputs
#5,968,983
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
#128
of 342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,221
of 406,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 406,870 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.