Population affinities of Neolithic Siberians: A snapshot from prehistoric Lake Baikal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archaeological evidence supports the inhabitation of the Lake Baikal region since the Paleolithic. Both metric and nonmetric osteological studies suggest that Neolithic Cis-Baikal populations are the ancestors of contemporary inhabitants of the region. To date, ancient DNA data have not been used to corroborate this biological continuity hypothesis. This study presents a temporal snapshot of the Cis-Baikal Neolithic by examining mtDNA diversity in two cemetery populations situated on the Angara River downstream of Lake Baikal. The 800 years separating the use of the two cemeteries is thought to represent a biocultural hiatus in the Cis-Baikal region, one that ended when a new group migrated into the area. To assess the likelihood that genetic continuity exists between these two Neolithic groups, we examined both mtDNA coding region and hypervariable region I (HVI) polymorphisms from skeletal remains excavated from both cemeteries (Lokomotiv and Ust'-Ida). The mtDNA haplogroup distributions of the two cemetery populations differ significantly, suggesting that they were biologically distinct groups. When the biological distance between these Neolithic groups is compared with modern Siberian and other East Eurasian groups, the posthiatus group (Serovo-Glazkovo) generally aligns with contemporary Siberians, while the prehiatus (Kitoi) individuals are significantly different from all but modern Kets and Shorians living in the Yenisey and Ob River basins to the west of Lake Baikal. These results suggest that the Lake Baikal region experienced a significant depopulation event during the sixth millennium BP, and was reoccupied by a new immigrant population some 800 years later.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".