Use and Misuse of Machine Learning in Anthropology

J. Calder, Reed Coil, J. A. Melton, P. Olver, G. Tostevin, K. Yezzi-Woodley
{"title":"Use and Misuse of Machine Learning in Anthropology","authors":"J. Calder, Reed Coil, J. A. Melton, P. Olver, G. Tostevin, K. Yezzi-Woodley","doi":"10.1109/MBITS.2022.3205143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Machine learning (ML), being now widely accessible to the research community at large, has fostered a proliferation of new and striking applications of these emergent mathematical techniques across a wide range of disciplines. In this article, we will focus on a particular case study: the field of paleoanthropology, which seeks to understand the evolution of the human species based on biological (e.g., bones, genetics) and cultural (e.g., stone tools) evidence. As we will show, the easy availability of ML algorithms and lack of expertise on their proper use among the anthropological research community has led to the foundational misapplications that have appeared throughout the literature. The resulting unreliable results not only undermine efforts to legitimately incorporate ML into anthropological research, but produce potentially faulty understandings about our human evolutionary and behavioral past. The aim of this article is to provide a brief introduction to some of the ways in which ML has been applied within paleoanthropology; we also include a survey of some basic ML algorithms for those who are not fully conversant with the field, which remains under active development. We discuss a series of missteps, errors, and violations of correct protocols of ML methods that appear disconcertingly often within the accumulating body of anthropological literature. These mistakes include the use of outdated algorithms and practices; inappropriate testing/training splits, sample composition, and textual explanations; as well as an absence of transparency due to the lack of data/code sharing, and the subsequent limitations imposed on independent replication. We assert that expanding samples, sharing data and code, re-evaluating approaches to peer review, and, most importantly, developing interdisciplinary teams that include experts in ML are all necessary for the progress in future research incorporating ML within anthropology and beyond.","PeriodicalId":448036,"journal":{"name":"IEEE BITS the Information Theory Magazine","volume":"229 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE BITS the Information Theory Magazine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/MBITS.2022.3205143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Machine learning (ML), being now widely accessible to the research community at large, has fostered a proliferation of new and striking applications of these emergent mathematical techniques across a wide range of disciplines. In this article, we will focus on a particular case study: the field of paleoanthropology, which seeks to understand the evolution of the human species based on biological (e.g., bones, genetics) and cultural (e.g., stone tools) evidence. As we will show, the easy availability of ML algorithms and lack of expertise on their proper use among the anthropological research community has led to the foundational misapplications that have appeared throughout the literature. The resulting unreliable results not only undermine efforts to legitimately incorporate ML into anthropological research, but produce potentially faulty understandings about our human evolutionary and behavioral past. The aim of this article is to provide a brief introduction to some of the ways in which ML has been applied within paleoanthropology; we also include a survey of some basic ML algorithms for those who are not fully conversant with the field, which remains under active development. We discuss a series of missteps, errors, and violations of correct protocols of ML methods that appear disconcertingly often within the accumulating body of anthropological literature. These mistakes include the use of outdated algorithms and practices; inappropriate testing/training splits, sample composition, and textual explanations; as well as an absence of transparency due to the lack of data/code sharing, and the subsequent limitations imposed on independent replication. We assert that expanding samples, sharing data and code, re-evaluating approaches to peer review, and, most importantly, developing interdisciplinary teams that include experts in ML are all necessary for the progress in future research incorporating ML within anthropology and beyond.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机器学习在人类学中的应用与误用
机器学习(ML)现在被广泛地应用于研究界,促进了这些新兴数学技术在广泛学科领域的新和惊人应用的扩散。在这篇文章中,我们将专注于一个特定的案例研究:古人类学领域,它试图根据生物(如骨骼、遗传学)和文化(如石器)证据来理解人类物种的进化。正如我们将展示的那样,机器学习算法的容易获得性以及在人类学研究界缺乏正确使用机器学习算法的专业知识,导致了在整个文献中出现的基本错误应用。由此产生的不可靠的结果不仅破坏了将ML合法纳入人类学研究的努力,而且对我们人类进化和行为的过去产生了潜在的错误理解。这篇文章的目的是提供一个简短的介绍,其中ML已在古人类学中应用的一些方式;我们还为那些不完全熟悉该领域的人提供了一些基本ML算法的调查,这些算法仍在积极发展中。我们讨论了一系列的失误,错误和违反正确的ML方法协议,这些方法在人类学文献的积累中经常令人不安地出现。这些错误包括使用过时的算法和实践;不恰当的测试/训练分割、样本组成和文本解释;以及由于缺乏数据/代码共享而缺乏透明度,以及随后对独立复制施加的限制。我们断言,扩大样本,共享数据和代码,重新评估同行评审的方法,最重要的是,发展包括机器学习专家在内的跨学科团队,对于将机器学习纳入人类学内外的未来研究进展都是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Belief Propagation for Classical and Quantum Systems: Overview and Recent Results QKD Based on Time-Entangled Photons and Its Key-Rate Promise Shaping Postquantum Cryptography: The Hidden Subgroup and Shift Problems OTFS—A Mathematical Foundation for Communication and Radar Sensing in the Delay-Doppler Domain Survey of Grammar-Based Data Structure Compression
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1