Bibliographic record
Abstract
1975 marked the end of a 20-year period of human biology research on physical environment. The focus then shifted from climatic adaptation to problems of nutrition, disease, and stress. However, many questions about human environmental patterns, especially in reference to their evolution, were abandoned rather than resolved. Assumptions about cold protective functions of low surface area/body mass ratio are entrenched in physical anthropology, despite lack of experimental validation. Since heat loss is controlled by vasoregulation and tissue insulation, a simple physics model of SA:mass may not apply. The issue merits investigation, as do the assumed thermal advantages of foreshortened extremities. Physiological assessment remains our primary research tool. In cold climate natives, elevated basal metabolic rates now appear to be genetically induced. During cold exposure, the body manages heat conservation through well known channels but also by specialized thermogenic functions such as metabolism in brown adipose tissue (BAT). The powerful protective capacity of BAT is largely unexplored either within or between populations of cold exposed human adults. An irony of our profession is that many biological variables seem to have minor effects when compared to behavioral cold protections. This is partly because biological anthropologists may have made incorrect assumptions about what most threatens the well being of cold climate people. Contrasts in environmental behaviors when comparing northern cultures such as Inuit, Athabaskan, and Norse are particularly instructive. Adaptations to life in the cold may ultimately reveal their secrets through biocultural research design modeling of environmental research. With both practical and theoretical gains still wide open, the field needs renewed attention from human biology.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".