. International Commission on Missing Persons,
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since , the Trotter formulae, developed on American Whites, have been used almost without exception to determine the stature of the population in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In , Ross and Konigsberg presented new formulae for stature estimation for Balkans, using bones from unidentifi ed Bosnian and Croatian males, victims of the recent war. Th e same year, , in his master thesis, Sarajlić also presented formulae for stature estimation of Bosnian population. Th e research was undertaken on male cadavers. Th e cadaver length was measured directly and the length of the long bones was obtained from radiographs. However, none of these formulae were tested on the bones from exhumed persons. Th is study compares all three methods on a large independent sample in order to determine which formulae provide the most accurate stature estimation for the male population in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Th e sample for this research consists of long bones (humerus, femur, tibia and fi bula) and was ob-tained from exhumed and identifi ed Bosnian males. Bones from the left side of the body were tested. Not all of them were present in each case: left humeri, left femura, left tibiae and left fi bulae. Data about height was recollected by family members. Apart of whole sample, all three methods were applied separately on individuals taller then cm. Of all three tested methods formulae proposed by Sarajlić et al. folowed by Ross and Konigsberg formulae, produced signifi cantly better results in stature estimation of tall persons.
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 | 0.024 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.038 |
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".