The agriculturalists of the Poole-Rose ossuary: a study of the femora and tibiae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dr. Heather McKillop of Louisiana State University was asked by the Alderville First Nation of Ontario in 1990 to excavate the Poole-Rose ossuary in 1990. This mass burial consisted of hundreds of mixed disarticulated and de-fleshed individuals as well as three articulated individuals laid in flexed positions. No artifacts were discovered with the bodies. Due to the absence of stratified soil layers from different periods, McKillop estimated the ossuary occurred during one burial event- “The Feast of the Dead.” Radiocarbon dating found the ossuary to be from A.D. 1550 ± 50 years (McKillop and Jackson 1991). I estimated sex according to measurements that fall below or rise above the means of femoral and tibial midshaft anteroposterior and mediolateral diameters (Dap and Dml; Dmax and Dmin, respectively), circumferences, and external breadth index (Dap/Dml). I also calculated sexual dimorphism of the Poole-Rose samples from those femoral and tibial midshaft measurements and measurements of the nutrient foramina anteroposterior/mediolateral ratio (Dmax/Dmin). I compared Poole-Rose sample means to Christopher Ruff’s (1987) similar reports of measurements in hunter-gatherer, agriculturalist, and industrialist samples. I also compared Poole-Rose means to Patricia Bridges’s (1989) study of femoral and tibial midshaft circumferences of agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers. This study tests the hypothesis that agricultural populations have lower sexual dimorphisms of the femur and tibia when compared with hunter-gatherer populations. I studied 325 tibiae and 281 femora. I assigned sex to 293 tibiae (146 females and 147 males) and 229 femora (113 females and 116 males). The Poole-Rose sexual dimorphism of femoral midshaft external breadth index was lower than Ruff’s (1987) hunter-gatherer samples and fell within the range of Ruff’s agricultural sample sexual dimorphisms. Poole-Rose tibial midshaft and nutrient foramina external breadth indices are higher than Ruff’s (1987) hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists. Poole-Rose femoral midshaft external breadth indices almost equal to Ruff’s (1987) Georgia Coast sample mean of agriculturalists. Poole-Rose femoral and tibial midshaft circumference means are also higher than Bridges’s (1989) hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".