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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".