Semiparametric method for estimating paleodemographic profiles from age indicator data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the problem of estimating an age-at-death distribution or paleodemographic profile from osteological data. It is demonstrated that the classical two-stage procedure whereby one first constructs estimates of age-at-death of individual skeletons and then uses these age estimates to obtain a paleodemographic profile is not a correct approach. This is a consequence of Bayes' theorem. Instead, we demonstrate a valid approach that proceeds from the opposite starting point: given skeletal age-at-death, one first estimates the probability of assigning the skeleton into a specific osteological age-indicator stage. We show that this leads to a statistically valid method for obtaining a paleodemographic profile, and moreover, that valid individual age estimation itself requires a demographic profile and therefore is done subsequent to its construction. Individual age estimation thus becomes the last rather than the first step in the estimation procedure. A central concept of our statistical approach is that of a weight function. A weight function is associated with each osteological age-indicator stage or category, and provides the probability that a specific age indicator stage is observed, given age-at-death of the individual. We recommend that weight functions be estimated nonparametrically from a reference data set. In their entirety, the weight functions characterize the relevant stochastic properties of a chosen age indicator. For actual estimation of the paleodemographic profile, a parametric age distribution in the target sample is assumed. The maximum likelihood method is used to identify the unknown parameters of this distribution. As some components are estimated nonparametrically, one then has a semiparametric model. We show how to obtain valid estimates of individual age-at-death, confidence regions, and goodness-of-fit tests. The methods are illustrated with both real and simulated data.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".