Book review for Reading the Bones, Activity, Biology and Culture by Elizabeth Weiss (2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewer: Diane Martin-Moya, Ph.D candidate in Bioarcheology (Department of Anthropology, University of Montreal) The book Reading the Bones, Activity, Biology and Culture considers the study of bones’ features as an essential question when observing osteological variation – Is the environment a suitable explanation over genetic selection and as a bioarcheologist is it possible to study specific markers to reconstruct past population activity pattern?. The approach to this question is original and is supported by a large and varied selection of studies in addition to an exhaustive glossary. This book considers issues encountered in bioarcheological studies (human and animal) and offer an overview of the methodologies that have been used on specific aspect of the bone. Through modern clinical and genetic studies, the author compared or correlated archaeological studies ranging from general analysis to specific material culture elements. This book includes a wide variety of examples from the late prehistoric to nowadays, while also covering a large territory and chronology and a corresponding relevant literature. These elements make the book of interest to a large audience among bioarcheologists.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.067 |
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".