3rd September 2013, 07:14 AM
Doug Wrote:Yeah, I am guessing you are misunderstanding me. Accuracy and precision are tricky. As precision goes up accuracy goes down and other way around. Lets say you label everything in your area, lets say Scotland, as containing a site (yes, agree about landscapes but that is a whole other discussion). Well you are 100% accurate. You guessed where all the sites are- everywhere. Not very useful for most.
Not sure that landscape is an entirely different discussion. English Heritage have made clear over the past few years that both site and setting are important factors and I'd be pretty sure Historic Scotland feel the same...that is however by the by.
PM as you describe only becomes a factor where evaluation is qualiative.....i.e 'We accept that 'archaeology' is there, however it is our opinion that only a certain percentage of 'archaeology' is significant enough to warrant intervention. Predict where that might occur' In other countries (Norway for example), all buried 'heritage' is protected irrespective of its type and quality. Evaluation therefore becomes quantative. I am guessing in that circumstance predictive modelling would only work in establishing the negative i.e suggest areas where there was no 'archaeology'....I find it interesting that the same PM process might be used for contradictive results depending entirely on the rationale behind the whole process.....which to my mind at least clearly points to the most effective way to actually protect our buried heritage...!
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...