MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089615391 · doi:10.29173/pathways4

New and Emerging Prospects for the Paleopathological Study of Starvation

2020· article· en· W3089615391 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rachel Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenuePathways · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaleopathologyOsteomalaciaStarvationModalitiesEnamel hypoplasiaBioarchaeologyNeglectMedicinePathologyOsteoporosisGeographyAnthropologyDentistryArchaeologySociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Starvation represents a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality, past and present, and is therefore of critical importance to the field of paleopathology. Scholars have previously argued that while critical to understanding past human health, starvation is often not directly observable in skeletal remains. But is this assessment still valid today? In re-evaluating this assessment, this paper discusses new developments in the analysis of (1) the “hunger osteopathies” (osteoporosis with some overlay of osteomalacia), (2) skeletal signs of arrested growth such as Harris lines and Linear Enamel Hypoplasia (LEH), and (3) carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis of skeletal remains. Periods of starvation are known to cause these visible and chemical alterations within skeletal remains, but these phenomena are complex, multi-etiological, and approaches to evaluate them are often fraught with a lack of standardization and specificity. An interdisciplinary approach synthesizing multiple lines of osteological and dental evidence, borrowing anatomical and medical research, and implementing new advancements in computer modeling, imaging modalities, and chemical micro-sampling may theoretically aid in inferring starvation bioarchaeologically.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathwaysSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207