Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract The manner in which biological anthropology approaches the analysis of anatomized skeletal remains—remains that exhibit evidence of medical intervention such as autopsies, dissections, and amputations—has changed significantly. Over the last decade, there has been a proliferation of reports and publications discussing skeletal remains recovered from historic contexts that exhibit evidence of medical intervention, with over a dozen journal articles and book chapters as well as two full length edited volumes. Examples have been reported on and discussed from Great Britain, Poland, France, Western Europe, Canada, and the US. This research can generally be placed into two, often overlapping, approaches; viewing the remains through the lens of medical history or social bioarchaeology. Many of the earliest publications on anatomized remains were principally descriptive (e.g., Angel et al. 1987; Molleson and Cox 1993) or focused more exclusively on how this type of evidence informs medical history (Henderson et al. 1996; Hillson et al. 1998; Mann et al. 1991; Owsley 1991, 1995; Valentin 1995; Waldron and Rogers 1988; Wesolowsky 1991). At this point in time, most of the examples that had been recovered were isolated, with only one or two individuals within a larger skeletal collection exhibiting such evidence. Therefore, the description and discussion of such evidence often only occupied a small portion of the report. For instance, Angel et al. (1987) provide only a brief note about a craniotomy observed in the skeletal collection recovered from the First African Baptist Church in Philadelphia. Such remains were rarities and while providing a unique glimpse into the development of medical training, authors were largely not considering the remains in their broader sociopolitical context.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.812 | 0.800 |
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".