A Test of the Effectiveness of the Revised Maxillary Suture Obliteration Method in Estimating Adult Age at Death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of the original maxillary suture method for estimating age at death, introduced in 1987 by Mann and colleagues, has been tested, but their revised maxillary suture method (1991) has not been subject to similar scrutiny. The purpose of this study is to test the accuracy of the revised maxillary suture method in estimating age at death on a genetically diverse skeletal sample of 155 maxillae (96 males, 59 females, aged 26 to 100 years) of known age at death from the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Results from a prior study of the original maxillary suture method will be compared. With age category correctly estimated for 83% of this sample, the results of this study indicate that the revised method is more effective in estimating age at death than the original method. The revised method appears to perform best for older individuals and tends to underestimate age for individuals of all age groups. The results suggest that the revised method is useful as a method for age estimation when it is used conjunction with other estimators.
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 | 0.027 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".