No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
In some jurisdictions, race, ancestry or population affinity are part of the biological profile used in preliminary identification, for historical and political reasons. It is long overdue for forensic anthropologists to abandon this typological approach to human variation, regardless of the terms used. Using a sample (n = 105) selected from the Terry and Coimbra identified reference collections, a blind experimental approach is used to test several metric methods and versions of methods for group estimation (Fordisc 3.0 and 3.1, and AncesTrees), that rely on different statistical approaches (discriminant function analysis and random forest algorithms, respectively) derived from different reference samples (Howells’ data in AncesTrees and Fordisc 3.1, and different forensic subsamples in Fordisc 3.0 and 3.1). The accuracy for matching premortem documented group designation is consistently low (36 to 50%) across testing parameters and consistent with other independent tests. The results clearly show that a change in terminology, software updates, alternative statistics, expanded reference samples, and newer collections will not solve the underlying fundamental problems. It is possible and necessary to transition from a typological conceptualization of variation to the effective utilization of identified reference collections in Forensic Anthropology. In addition to the theoretical and methodological reasons, it is unethical for forensic anthropologists to continue to use on the deceased methods that do not work and that serve only to further exclude and marginalize the living.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.