Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropology, in general, has recently been working toward reworking their systems to be better suited to the needs of descendent communities. Bioarchaeology, however, has been slower to adopt these efforts. In the spirit of reconciliation, it is important for all disciplines to self-reflect and critique the colonial systems that have been institutionalized their teaching and research. This paper serves as a theoretical exploration into the current practice of bioarchaeology and seeks to provide a theoretical model that could contribute toward the decolonization of the discipline to be appropriate for application in Canada. It discusses how to better orient theory to compliment ancestral knowledge and reorganize bioarchaeology so that it could be more useful to responding to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Calls to Action (2015) and benefit the needs of descendants. It will proceed by reviewing the integration of social theory in bioarchaeology, providing a critique of the biocultural approach, and finish by proposing a theoretical model that seeks to contribute to the ongoing decolonization of bioarchaeology. The model that this paper proposes serves is a suggestion of how to better structure and conduct a project including ancient human remains to better optimize the application of archaeological theory as a compliment to traditional knowledge. It is formed on the bases of theories of personhood, shared histories, behavioral archaeology, and biocultural approaches to provide a pragmatic synthesis of theory for a community driven bioarchaeology.
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 | 0.046 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.175 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".