MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081876098 · doi:10.1002/oa.623

Spondylolysis in Inuit skeletons from Arctic Canada

2002· article· en· W2081876098 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Charles F. Merbs

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Osteoarchaeology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsSpondylolysisArcticGeographyBayPars interarticularisArchaeologyThe arcticDemographyMedicineGeologyAnatomyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Inuit skeletons from archaeological sites in Arctic Canada were examined for the presence of spondylolysis. The largest series represent the Thule culture and historic Inuit from northwest Hudson Bay and Labrador, and Sadlermiut from Southampton Island. The condition was found in 90 individuals, with a total of 120 affected vertebrae producing 198 hemi‐arch defect sites. As in other studies, L5 is affected most frequently, followed by L4 and L3, but examples of L1, L2, L6, and S1 involvement are represented. Incomplete separations account for 20% (40) of the 198 defects, and 5% (10) occur at sites other than interarticularis. Affected males outnumber females at a ratio of 2.4 to 1. The condition was found to increase in frequency from adolescence to young adulthood, and then decrease to middle adulthood and decrease again to old adulthood, but the drop in frequency with age in the adult categories is significant only at the .20 level. Where comparisons could be made, the data obtained from the Canadian Inuit closely resemble those obtained from Alaskan Eskimos and Aleuts, especially their closest linguistic relatives, Inupiat speakers in northern Alaska. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of OsteoarchaeologySame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207