Dental anthropology investigations of behaviour and society in some historic Arctic/Sub-Arctic samples \n
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis is a dental anthropological study of Arctic/Sub-Arctic samples utilising oral environmental \nhealth indicators (caries, calculus, periodontal disease), dental wear, craniofacial trauma (CFT), \nparamasticatory dental activities (PMDA) and cultural identifiers to analyse labour and dietary divisions, \nand how teeth were used as tools and cultural identifiers. The study was organised ecogeographically, as the \nmostly historically collected remains meant temporal distinctions were largely impossible, bar being preEuropean contact. Contextualisation utilised ethnohistoric accounts, published bioarchaeological, \narchaeological and clinical studies, and a PMDA recording method, developed here. A total of 1540 \nindividuals were analysed from Siberia, the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, Canada, and Greenland. Arctic/SubArctic populations have been the focus of ethnohistoric, bioarchaeological, and clinical studies, but \nmisconceptions remain regarding homogeneity. Whilst many cultures extended across the ecogeographic \nrange of Arctic/Sub-Arctic populations, the divergent ecogeographies should result in distinct diet, labour, \nPMDA, and cultural identification. \n \nThe oral environmental health indicators show overall, homogenously good oral health but were too \ninfrequent for dietary divisions assessment. Whilst the wear results were similarly non-distinct for the adults \nfor labour divisions, they illustrated the age PMDA began (5.5-10.5-years-old) when analysed in conjunction \nwith the CFT and PMDA results. The younger age (5.5-years-old) coincides with development of adult \nlevels of coordination and balance, and improved musculature control from changes in motor learning \nabilities. The same type of PMDA was found to continue into adulthood in one sample (West Greenland). \nFurther distinct behaviours were found in another sample (Amaknak Island), as wear is absent in subadults, \nbut extensive wear is present in the adults. \n \nThe analysis also showed two distinct cultural identification configurations – wearing labrets and ablation \n– with a demographic distribution and restricted to the Aleutian Islands. Ablation has been reported in \nthese populations, but not accepted by most researchers. The analysis found evidence that females and \nmales had different extraction methods and placements of ablation. In males, teeth were forcefully removed \nfrom the socket, with the roots remaining, followed by alveolar bone resorption. The females experienced \na less traumatic extraction method, as roots remaining is absent. Evidence of wearing labrets inferior to the \nlabia inferior oris was found. The analysis also found an unreported labret placement, being superior to the \nlabia superior oris. The females and males have different patterns of wearing labrets, with females wearing \nlabrets laterally, and the males wearing one medially, both superior to the labia superior oris. The study \nprovides an immense amount of information on Arctic/Sub-Arctic samples, the homogenous oral health \nenvironment, and the distinct PMDA and cultural identifiers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".