New Technology and Ancient Questions {part 2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The FARMS update in the previous issue of Insights discussed DNA studies of the ancestry of cotton species as an example of how new technologies can produce both answers and interesting new questions about the ancient worid. DNA comparison also serves to identify ancestral relationships among human groups. For example, Douglas C. Wallace of Emory University has concluded from studies of mitochondrial DNA that "prehistoric, intrepid mariners" came "out of Southeast Asia across the Pacific into the Americas 6,000 to 12,000 years ago." They could have come across the central Pacific or coasting along northeast Asia, Alaska, and Canada, he guesses. Direct voyaging must have been involved since "native Siberians lack one peculiar mutation that appeared in the Amerinds 6,000 to 10,000 years ago." Specifically, the DNA signature of many American Indians of the Amazon basin is surprisingly tied to that of early Pacific islanders.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".