Differences in entheseal changes in the phalanges between ecotypes of Fennoscandian reindeer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The identification and life histories of the different subspecies and ecotypes ofRangifer tarandus(reindeer) in Fennoscandia are of great interest to zooarchaeologists, as this species is a keystone animal of the North. The barrengroundRangifer tarandus tarandushas historically had closer bonds with humans as a herded and domestic animal. By contrast, the borealRangifer tarandus fennicushas been a prey animal with a more fraught relationship with humans. Identifying which of these ecotypes were present and interacting with humans at different points in history provides information not only of human economies and subsistence strategies but also of the life histories and behavioural patterns of the reindeer themselves. This study uses scoring of entheseal changes on the phalanges of these animals to investigate different mobility, foraging and limb‐use patterns between ecotypes. Our studies found both interesting differences in hoof use patterns betweenR.t. tarandusandR.t. fennicus, which show that these ecotypes are both using their hooves differently, but in different patterns of forelimb versus hindlimb use.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".