Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescence is marked by a wide range of biological, social, and neurological changes. Adolescents are stereotypically viewed as reckless, impulsive, and troubled, but research across the social and biomedical sciences is demonstrating that this is a narrow view of a dynamic period of life. Now, research is showing that adolescents are frequently responsible for the creation and transmission of new ideas and practices and for the creation of new social bonds, which can contribute to personal and community growth. In short, adolescents are key to the development and success of a community. The bioarchaeological study of adolescence not only speaks to the experiences of adolescents but also captures the life of a community, especially as this period encapsulates early life experiences and lays the foundations for later adult health outcomes. Consequently, the study of adolescence in past populations provides deep-time insights into adolescence as a uniquely human experience. This special issue of Bioarchaeology International focuses on newly developing work within the bioarchaeological study of adolescence, demonstrating how researchers can use bioculturally informed research to advance our understanding of adolescence in the past. In doing so, we demonstrate where the study of adolescence has come from, where it is presently situated, and where we may take it moving forward, as the study of adolescence not only emerges but also flourishes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.007 |
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".