Not of African Descent: Dental Modification among Indigenous Caribbean People from Canímar Abajo, Cuba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental modifications in the Caribbean are considered to be an African practice introduced to the Caribbean archipelago by the influx of enslaved Africans during colonial times. Skeletal remains which exhibited dental modifications are by default considered to be Africans, African descendants, or post-contact indigenous people influenced by an African practice. Individual E-105 from the site of Canímar Abajo (Cuba), with a direct 14C AMS date of 990-800 cal BC, provides the first unequivocal evidence of dental modifications in the Antilles prior to contact with Europeans in AD 1492. Central incisors showing evidence of significant crown reduction (loss of crown volume regardless of its etiology) were examined macroscopically and with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to determine if the observed alterations were due to deliberate modification or other (unintentional) factors considered: postmortem breakage, violent accidental breakage, non-dietary use of teeth, and wear caused by habitual or repeated actions. The pattern of crown reduction is consistent with deliberate dental modification of the type commonly encountered among African and African descendent communities in post-contact Caribbean archaeological assemblages. Six additional individuals show similar pattern of crown reduction of maxillary incisors with no analogous wear in corresponding mandibular dentition.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".