MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593369570 · doi:10.1017/9781316388907

Building Bones: Bone Formation and Development in Anthropology

2017· book· en· W2593369570 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher J. Percival

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological anthropologyPerspective (graphical)Evolutionary anthropologyDisciplineVariation (astronomy)BiologyBone developmentEvolutionary biologyAnthropologyCognitive scienceSociologyPsychologyComputer scienceSocial scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bone is the tissue most frequently recovered archaeologically and is the material most commonly studied by biological anthropologists, who are interested in how skeletons change shape during growth and across evolutionary time. This volume brings together a range of contemporary studies of bone growth and development to highlight how cross-disciplinary research and new methods can enhance our anthropological understanding of skeletal variation. The novel use of imaging techniques from developmental biology, advanced sequencing methods from genetics, and perspectives from evolutionary developmental biology improve our ability to understand the bases of modern human and primate variation. Animal models can also be used to provide a broad biological perspective to the systematic study of humans. This volume is a testament to the drive of anthropologists to understand biological and evolutionary processes that underlie changes in bone morphology and illustrates the continued value of incorporating multiple perspectives within anthropological inquiry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207