Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this introduction to the thematic issue Living and Dying in Mountain Landscapes, we develop an analytical framework for the bioarchaeology and mortuary archaeology of highland landscapes. We highlight new theoretical, methodological, and comparative contributions to the anthropological study of upland spaces. Theoretical contributions include examining identity, connectivity, and adaptation from an explicitly biocultural perspective. By bridging the biological anthropological focus on the somatic with an archaeological focus on the long term, bioarchaeology allows for the development of an embodied understanding of “marginal” highland environments, investigating how such landscapes shape and are shaped by human action over time. Recent advances in bioarchaeological methods, including isotopic analyses of mobility and diet and ancient DNA studies of kinship and relatedness, are combined with traditional osteological examinations of age, sex, ancestry, and disease to reconstruct the lifeways of mountain communities. These methodological advances take advantage of the topographical, geological, and ecological diversity of mountain landscapes. Finally, a comparative bioarchaeology of upland and lowland communities across space and time provides a deeper understanding of highland adaptations and identities. The papers share a number of unifying themes, including the impact of mountain landscapes on channeling resource control, creating or mediating diverse identities, and the importance of interdisciplinary investigations for developing an understanding of the relationship between people and place. As this issue demonstrates, the study of human remains must be situated within a holistic bioarchaeological approach to life and death in order to understand the dynamic relationships between people and the highland environments they occupy. En esta introducción a la cuestión temática 'Vivir y morir en paisajes de montaña’ desarrollamos un marco analítico para la bioarqueología y la arqueología mortuoria de los paisajes serranos. Destacamos un conjunto de nuevas contribuciones teóricas, metodológicas, y comparativas al estudio antropológico de estos paisajes. Entre ellas destacan los análisis de la identidad, la conectividad y la adaptación, todos aproximados desde una perspectiva explícitamente biocultural. Al unir el énfasis bioantropológico en lo somático con el interés arqueológico en la larga duración, la bioarqueología favorece una aproximación corporizada a los ambientes “marginales” de las tierras altas, investigando cómo estos paisajes moldean y son moldeados por la acción humana a lo largo del tiempo. Los recientes avances en métodos bioarqueológicos, como los análisis isotópicos de movilidad y dieta o los estudios de ADN antiguo sobre parentesco y otros principios de existencia compartida, se combinan con los tradicionales exámenes osteológicos de edad, sexo, ascendencia y enfermedad para reconstruirlas formas de vida de las comunidades de montaña. Estos avances metodológicos aprovechan la diversidad topográfica, geológica y ecológica de los entornos serranos. Finalmente, una comprensión más profunda de las adaptaciones e identidades de las serranías requiere de una aproximación bioarqueológica comparativa de las comunidades serranas y de las que habitan las tierras bajas a través del tiempo y del espacio. Todos estos trabajos comparten una serie de temas comunes: la manera en la que los paisajes de montaña canalizan las formas de control de los recursos, la creación o mediación de distintas identidades y la importancia de las investigaciones interdisciplinares para desarrollar una comprensión de la relación entre personas y lugares. Como se demuestra a lo largo de este número, el estudio de los restos humanos requiere de un enfoque bioarqueológico holístico de la vida y la muerte que permita comprender las relaciones dinámicas que se desarrollaron entre las personas y sus respectivos entornos serranos.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".