MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390462956 · doi:10.29173/pathways46

Bogged Down

2023· article· en· W4390462956 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenuePathways · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPaleopathology and ancient diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBogRadiocarbon datingPeatArchaeologyGeographyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the bioarchaeological methods employed to investigate bog bodies, which are human remains preserved in peat bogs. The distinctive preservation conditions of bogs have facilitated the remarkable survival of soft tissues, hair, and even textiles, dating back thousands of years. Commencing with a concise historical overview of bog bodies and the associated cultural beliefs, this section elucidates how bogs foster preservation. Bioarchaeological techniques for studying of bog bodies encompass note-taking, photography, radiocarbon dating, isotopic analysis, and medical imaging. Subsequent application of these methods to the case study of Tollund Man, a renowned bog body unearthed in the 1950s, allows researchers to reconstruct Tollund Man’s dietary habits, lifestyle, and cause of death, thereby providing fresh insights into the lives of individuals during the Iron Age. The study of bog bodies grants a unique glimpse into the past, and the evolving bioarchaeological methods utilized in their analysis continue to enhance our comprehension of human history.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.006

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.158 · 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