NEW CRITERIA FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION OF BONE GREASE PROCESSING
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bone grease processing is frequently used in archaeology to investigate human diet breadth because it constitutes a costly mode of lipid procurement. However, problems of equifinality often complicate the identification of this activity. This paper develops new criteria focused on morphology, the presence of micro-inclusions, and forms of damage that were derived from a bone grease rendering experiment that involved red deer (Cervus elaphus) long bones. Because they are poorly represented in a distinct experiment focused exclusively on marrow extraction, the criteria presented here appear to provide robust signatures of bone grease processing. A survey of the actualistic literature shows that certain bone processing activities, such as stewing and soup making, mostly involve coarse spongy fragments. Because these fragments are too large to be ingested, grease can be extracted from them only through heating or boiling. In contrast, bones ingested in bone meal or as flour necessitate pulverization. A high percentage of coarse fragments may therefore provide a proxy for cooking technology or, minimally, the use of fire, if other patterns are consistent with grease extraction. Given the evolutionary significance of these innovations, the criteria presented here may help to strengthen arguments about dietary shifts during the Paleolithic and later periods.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it