MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389325175 · doi:10.22582/ta.v12i2.676

Teaching Virtual Forensic Anthropology Labs: Methods and Reflections

2023· article· en· W4389325175 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching Anthropology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Processing and 3D Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersLakehead University
KeywordsComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)Forensic anthropologyVirtual realityEngineering ethicsHuman–computer interactionMathematics educationPsychologySociologyEngineeringEpistemologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Development of virtual labs for Forensic Anthropology was complicated by the notion that the skeleton cannot be learned without physical manipulation. This was addressed by using free programs to teach using 3D models of bone. Successes and shortcomings are discussed based on student and educator feedback. Integration of 3D models in teaching is plausible as it reduces deterioration of specimens and increases accessibility of the lab, however, the ethics of digital archaeology, including curation of human skeletal models, is an unsolved challenge. Overall, although 3D modelling cannot replace hands-on learning, teaching virtually can indeed ensure high-quality instruction is delivered.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.379 · 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