Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to analyze dwarfism and its standing in ancient Egyptian society and culture. Dwarfism existed in ancient Egyptian society, but unlike other ancient societies, those with dwarfism were not blatantly discriminated against (Sullivan 2001). Individuals with dwarfism could hold many positions within society ranging from herdsmen and fishermen, to personal attendants in royal court (Kozma 2008). There is evidence of individuals with dwarfism dating back to the Badarian Period, with statues, sarcophagi, skeletons, and paintings all having been discovered (Kozma 2008). There are several prominent figures who have been studied in detail; Per-ni-ankh-w was an individual with high status in Egyptian society, and there is ample documentation of him in texts, visual imagery, and skeletal evidence (Kozma 2008). Djeho was another individual who has been well documented and aided with burials (Kozma 2008). Individuals with dwarfism also had religious importance, including the gods Bes and Ptah (Kozma 2008). Individuals with dwarfism were also considered to hold magical significance, and this was seen in spells and religious texts (Kozma 2008). Additionally, there is an abundance of artistic representation of individuals with dwarfism, in the form of statues, sarcophagi, and visual images (Kozma 2008). The Walters Art Museum is also a significant holder of Egyptian art, with many depictions of dwarfism (Kozma 2010). These individuals were significant in ancient Egyptian society and were well documented in several forms.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".