MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6944442172 · doi:10.18739/a20g3h048

Cape Espenberg Birnirk Project (CEBP) human mitogenome summary analysis (2016-2019)

2020· dataset· en· W6944442172 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUC Santa Barbara · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapemtDNA control regionMitochondrial DNAHaplotypeLineage (genetic)Genetic diversityHypervariable region

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic characterization of past Inuit populations has been limited due to the lack of genetic information from individuals associated with the Birnirk culture (1300-700 BP). “Beringian-specific” maternal lineages A2a, A2b1, and D4b1a2a1a have been documented in Thule Inuit populations (950-50 BP) throughout the North American Arctic. However, only haplotype A2a has been reported in five individuals excavated from the Paipelghak site on Chukotka peninsula. It remains unclear if Birnirk individuals are genetically distinct from Thule Inuit populations. Genetic research of past populations from western Alaska, a proposed transition area between the Birnirk and Thule material cultures, provides an opportunity to address this uncertainty. Segments from the first hypervariable region of the mitochondrial control region were sequenced from thirty-eight Birnirk individuals from the Alaskan North Slope and two Thule individuals excavated from Cape Espenberg. Twenty-three individuals yielded full, contamination-free control region sequences and possess mitochondrial lineages A2a, A2a1, A2a3, A2b1, and D4b1a2a1a. These results indicate an expansion of the observed maternal lineage diversity and confirms Birnirk populations as direct maternal ancestors to the Thule Inuit.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.025

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUC Santa BarbaraFrench-language works237,207