MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035121225 · doi:10.1163/15685306-bja10012

Love and Death: Theoretical and Practical Examination of Human-Animal Relations in Creating Wild Animal Osteobiography

2020· article· en· W3035121225 on OpenAlex
Emily Hull

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociety and Animals · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal lifeHuman animalHuman lifeEnvironmental ethicsAnimal speciesSubject (documents)Companion animalPsychologyHistoryZoologyEcologyBiologyPhilosophyComputer sciencePolitical scienceLawLivestock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Osteobiographies are a common form of presenting the archaeological analysis of the life history of an individual. This form of analysis, however, is usually reserved for human subjects. Writing an osteobiography of a nonhuman person is complicated by the lack of human understanding of animal thought and experience. Such analysis is further complicated when the subject is not a companion animal, and isolated from human funerary rituals which may shed light on the animal’s life. The skeletal remains of an injured wild caribou from Alberta who was collected as a museum specimen presents a unique opportunity to understand an individual animal’s life, as well presents an example of the complexities of human-animal relationships in an analytical setting. This study examines both the life of an extraordinary nonhuman person and the impact of reconstructing nonhuman life histories on the analyst.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.333 · 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