The Identification and Assessment of Mortuary Features
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
ABSTRACT The decision as to whether or not to excavate ancient Native mortuary features will require information on their extent and nature. This raises the question of how reliably these aspects can be assessed from the initial exposure of the feature, at its uppermost undisturbed level. In three Ontario cases in which the negotiators decided on full excavation of the features, it is possible to compare the initial assessments to the excavation results. In general, the information obtained in the initial assessments was accurate enough to allow the negotiating parties to make an informed decision, and to assist the archaeologists in their interpretation of the site. However, a major problem with initial assessments is that they sometimes fail to identify features containing only disarticulated minor skeletal elements, leading to an underestimation of the scope of the situation. The solution recommended here is to have a bioarchaeologist on the excavation team to promptly identify and assess any mortuary features and, when necessary, to excavate them.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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