Study of materials and technology of ancient floor mosaics' substrate

Ancient pavements are composed of a variety of preparatory or foundation layers constituting the substrate, and of a layer of tesserae, pebbles or marble slabs forming the surface of the floor. In other cases, the surface consists of a mortar layer beaten and polished. The term mosaic is associated with the presence of tesserae or pebbles, while the more general term pavement is used in all the cases. As past and modern excavations of ancient pavements demonstrated, all pavements do not necessarily display the stratigraphy of the substrate described in the ancient literary sources. In fact, the number and thickness of the preparatory layers, as well as the nature and the properties of their constituent materials, are often varying in pavements which are placed either in different sites or in different buildings within a same site or even in a same building. For such a reason, an investigation that takes account of the whole structure of the pavement is important when studying the archaeological context of the site where it is placed, when designing materials to be used for its maintenance and restoration, when documenting it and when presenting it to public. Five case studies represented by archaeological sites containing floor mosaics and other kind of pavements, dated to the Hellenistic and the Roman period, have been investigated by means of in situ and laboratory analyses. The results indicated that the characteristics of the studied pavements, namely the number and the thickness of the preparatory layers, and the properties of the mortars constituting them, vary according to the ancient use of the room where the pavements are placed and to the type of surface upon which they were built. The study contributed to the understanding of the function and the technology of the pavements’ substrate and to the characterization of its constituent materials. Furthermore, the research underlined the importance of the investigation of the whole structure of the pavement, included the foundation surface, in the interpretation of the archaeological context where it is located. A series of practical applications of the results of the research, in the designing of repair mortars for pavements, in the documentation of ancient pavements in the conservation practice, and in the presentation to public in situ and in museums of ancient pavements, have been suggested.

Science of retracted science: a citation analysis of the arts and humanities domain

In the scholarly publishing domain, a retraction is raised when a specific publication is considered erroneous by the venue in which it appeared after it was published. The aim of this work is uncovering new insights and learn new important information to help us understand the retraction phenomenon in the arts and humanities domain. Our investigation is based on a methodology defined using quantitative and qualitative measures derived from previous studies in the transdisciplinary research field of “science of science” (SciSci). The designed methodology takes into account a general case of retraction and applies a citation analysis based on five phases. Citations to retracted publications (before and after their retraction) are gathered and characterized with a set of attributes, including general metadata and information extracted from citing entities’ full text. The annotated characteristics are further considered for a statistical and a textual analysis (i.e., a topic modeling analysis). The contribution of this thesis is grounded by addressing the following research questions: (RQ1) How did scholarly research cite retracted humanities publications before and after their retraction? (RQ2) Did all the humanities areas behave similarly concerning the retraction phenomenon? (RQ3) What are the main differences and similarities in the retraction dynamics between the humanities domain and the STEM disciplines? RQ1 and RQ2 are addressed by tuning and applying the methodology on the analysis of the retracted publications in the humanities domain. RQ3 is addressed on two levels, i.e., considering and comparing: (L1) the outcomes of the past studies on the retraction in STEM, and (L2) the results obtained from an analysis of a retraction case in STEM using the defined methodology.