Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Musculoskeletal markers are frequently used to reconstruct past lifestyles and activity patterns. Yet the reliability of muscle marker measurements has been called into question because they may be confounded by body size. In this study, an aggregate muscle marker variable was calculated using 20 insertion sites (14 femoral, 6 tibial), and I examined their effects on lower limb size (as a proxy for body size), age, and sex. Analyses were made of a sample of 77 (57 males, 20 females) Native British Columbians (3,500-1,500 years BP) and 18th century Quebec prisoners. Muscle markers were measured using two-point observer rating scales; size was measured by standard methods; and age and sex were determined through pelvic, cranial, and dental morphology. Lower limb muscle markers correlated with: age, r=0.61; lower limb size, r=0.52; and sex, r=0.49; P <0.001. Older individuals had higher muscle marker scores, as did larger individuals and males. Based on partial correlations and regression analyses, age was the best overall predictor of lower limb muscle markers.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it