A comparison of minimally-invasive sampling techniques for ZooMS analysis of bone artifacts: MALDI-TOF mass spectra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bone and antler are important raw materials for tool manufacture in many cultures, past and present. The modification of osseous features which take place during artifact manufacture frequently makes it difficult to identify either the bone element or the host animal, which can limit our understanding of the cultural, economic, and/or symbolic factors which influence raw material acquisition and use. While biomolecular approaches can provide taxonomic identifications of bone or antler artifacts, these methods are frequently destructive, raising concerns about invasive sampling of culturally-important artifacts or belongings. Collagen peptide mass fingerprinting (Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry or ZooMS) can provide robust taxonomic identifications of bone and antler artifacts. While the ZooMS method commonly involves destructive subsampling, minimally-invasive sampling techniques based on the triboelectric effect have also been proposed. In this paper, we compare three previously proposed minimally-invasive sampling methods (forced bag, eraser, and polishing film) on an assemblage of 15 bone artifacts from the pre-contact site EjTa-4, a large midden complex located on Calvert Island, British Columbia, Canada. We compare the results of the minimally-invasive methods to 10 fragmentary remains sampled using the conventional destructive ZooMS method. We assess the reliability and effectiveness of these methods by comparing MALDI-TOF spectral quality, the number of diagnostic and high molecular weight peaks as well as the taxonomic resolution reached after identification. We find that coarse fiber-optic polishing films are the most effective of the minimally-invasive techniques compared in this study, and that the spectral quality produced by this minimally-invasive method was not significantly different from the conventional destructive method. Our results suggest that this minimally-invasive sampling technique for ZooMS can be successfully applied to culturally significant artifacts, providing comparable taxonomic identifications to the conventional, destructive ZooMS method.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".