Interpreting the oral condition in medieval European populations from a bioarchaeological perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpretation of dental ‘health’ in archaeologically derived skeletal assemblages is challenging due to the lack of patient histories, clearly understood pathological processes, broad etiologies, and cultural perceptions of health. Furthermore, the language used in description of pathological conditions of the oral cavity condition is not consistent across researchers thereby resulting in challenging cross-site comparison. Standardization of terms and description is necessary as proposed by Pilloud and Fancher (2018). This paper demonstrates the challenges associated with cross-site comparisons through an attempt to place medieval Transylvanian Székely peoples’ oral status within a larger medieval cultural and biological framework. To do this, first, a review of medieval perceptions of dental health and treatment is provided. Next, a total of 90 individuals recovered from two medieval Székely cemeteries were analyzed for age, sex, and pathological conditions of the oral cavity. The results of the analysis were then compared to other medieval skeletal assemblages reporting on dental ‘health’. Finally, a discussion of how the Székely compare to other medieval sites and the challenges faced are presented thus supporting Pilloud and Fancher’s (2018) call for standardization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".