Prediction of cross‐sectional geometry from metacarpal radiogrammetry: A validation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regression models have been developed to adjust algebraic estimates of second metacarpal cortical bone geometry to actual values (as determined through invasive analysis). These models, derived from an archaeological sample of European origin, have high efficacy in predicting actual values but have not been validated on non-European samples. This paper reports a validation study for these models applied to a historic/proto-historic sample of Inuit from the central Canadian Arctic (n = 166; ages and sexes pooled as per the original study). In that the Inuit sample has been argued to exhibit distinct skeletal biology, this represents a robust test of the predictive models. The algebraic models again produced biased overestimates of actual values, whereas the predictive regression models were found to provide good estimates of actual values for measures of bone strength (Total Area, bending about the Ix and Iy axes), but not for estimates of mass (Cortical Area). This difference may exist in either functional or systemic differences in skeletal physiology and aging bone loss in the Inuit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".