The Representation of Non-adult Skeletal Elements Recovered from British Archaeological Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractNon-adult skeletal remains are often cited as under-represented in the archaeological record. The most common reasons put forward for this are taphonomy, cultural beliefs and archaeological bias. It is well known that larger more robust bones survive the burial environment better than those which are less dense. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors have an effect on the preservation of human bone, many of which are thought to have a greater effect on non-adult bone than those of adults. This paper examines the representation of non-adult skeletal elements recovered from five archaeological sites from different geographical locations in the United Kingdom. The objective of the study was to compare and contrast the location, age of the non-adult and the frequency of the skeletal elements recovered. It was found that a clear preservation pattern exists at all sites, with the bones of the skull and limbs very well-represented, whereas the bones of the face, hands and feet were less represented.Keywords: CHILDREN'S SKELETONSBONE REPRESENTATION INDEXBONE PRESERVATIONBONE TYPESTAPHONOMY
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".