MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404144511 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.15653

The use of dietary isotopes as a preliminary step in the death investigation of unidentified skeletal human remains in British Columbia, Canada

2024· article· en· W4404144511 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Damon Tarrant, Laura Yazedjian, Joe Hepburn, Sahra Talamo, Michael P. Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsInnovative Targeting Solutions (Canada)Simon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPoison controlMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In British Columbia, Canada, unidentified skeletal human remains are often recovered by law enforcement or civilians and there is a question if they are modern and of medicolegal significance, or historical or archaeological. We used relatively fast and inexpensive carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis of human bone collagen from a selection of these remains (n = 48) combined with a logistic regression model to classify remains as modern, historical, or archaeological. We then confirmed our temporal classification through directly radiocarbon dating each individual and found that we could predict the temporal group with 93% accuracy. In regions where archaeological remains have dietary isotope values distinct from living people, dietary stable isotope analysis can provide a time-, and resource-efficient method to screen cases of unidentified human remains early in death investigation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207