Secondary osteon and Haversian canal dimensions as behavioral indicators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variation in the size of structures within mature cortical bone is relevant to our understanding of apparent differences between human samples, and it is relevant to the development of histologically based age-estimation methods. It was proposed that variation may reflect effects of physical activity, through biomechanical and/or metabolic mechanisms. If these factors are local, femoral osteon area (On.Ar) should be more histologically variable than On.Ar in ribs. Ribs should show a higher variation in Haversian canal area (H.Ar) if they are sites of more remodeling activity and hence of arrested refilling of secondary osteons at time of death. This study compares On.Ar and H.Ar of secondary osteons from femora (15) and ribs (29) from 44 Holocene (Later Stone Age) foragers from South Africa (M = 19, F = 25) to values from paired femora and ribs from historic samples (Spitalfields and St. Thomas, 20 pairs from each). Fixed-effects analysis of variance demonstrates rib On.Ar to be significantly smaller than femur, but with no sex or age effects. The femur-to-rib On.Ar ratio is lower for the Holocene foragers than for the two modern samples because of relatively large rib On.Ar. Femora and ribs from the same skeleton normally show femoral On.Ar larger than rib On.Ar (37/44 pairs). Mean femoral values of On.Ar are more diverse than rib On.Ar values, but within-sample coefficients of variation are similar. Values for H.Ar are highly variable and do not reflect anatomical site, age, sex, or population effects. The patterning of osteon size does not appear to be linked to physical activity or to different rates of metabolic activity within the skeleton, at least not in a straightforward way.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".