Humeral cross‐sectional morphology from 18th century Quebec prisoners of war: Limits to activity reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study uses measures of cross-sectional robusticity and asymmetry (based on humeral areal and inertial cross-sectional components) to test a prediction from bone remodeling theory that a physically active 18th century Quebec prisoner of war sample (N = 25) should have more robust and asymmetrical humeri than a nonphysically active 20th century New Mexico suburbanite sample (N = 27). Narrative accounts document that prisoners of war engaged in labor-intensive activities, and these activities were confirmed by observations of osteoarthritis and other pathologies. The suburbanite sample, for the most part, did not engage in such activities. The prisoners had higher levels of pathology than the suburbanites (e.g., 80% vs. 22% osteoarthritis; F = 17.95, P < 0.01). For robusticity, the populations did not differ significantly in total area, cortical area, moment areas of inertia about the mediolateral plane, or polar moment area of inertia. The Quebec prison sample did have significantly higher values for moment areas of inertia about the anteroposterior plane. For asymmetry, the populations did not differ in any values (total area, cortical area, moment areas of inertia about the mediolateral plane, moment areas of inertia about the anteroposterior plane, or polar moment of inertia). Thus, examinations of cross-sectional robusticity and asymmetry failed to conclusively confirm the hypothesis that intensive labor leads to changes in humeral morphology. Possible explanations for the lack of differences are discussed, such as poor diet impeding bone remodeling. Nevertheless, the one significant finding suggests that cross-sectional shape is more useful in reconstructing activity patterns than amount of bone in a cross section. Results from this study join those from other recent investigations to suggest that additional controls are required before cross-sectional differences may be confidently attributed to activity patterns.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.058 |
| 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".