Bony pelvic canal size and shape in relation to body proportionality in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstetric selection acts on the female pelvic canal to accommodate the human neonate and contributes to pelvic sexual dimorphism. There is a complex relationship between selection for obstetric sufficiency and for overall body size in humans. The relationship between selective pressures may differ among populations of different body sizes and proportions, as pelvic canal dimensions vary among populations. Size and shape of the pelvic canal in relation to body size and shape were examined using nine skeletal samples (total female n = 57; male n = 84) from diverse geographical regions. Pelvic, vertebral, and lower limb bone measurements were collected. Principal component analyses demonstrate pelvic canal size and shape differences among the samples. Male multivariate variance in pelvic shape is greater than female variance for North and South Africans. High-latitude samples have larger and broader bodies, and pelvic canals of larger size and, among females, relatively broader medio-lateral dimensions relative to low-latitude samples, which tend to display relatively expanded inlet antero-posterior (A-P) and posterior canal dimensions. Differences in canal shape exist among samples that are not associated with latitude or body size, suggesting independence of some canal shape characteristics from body size and shape. The South Africans are distinctive with very narrow bodies and small pelvic inlets relative to an elongated lower canal in A-P and posterior lengths. Variation in pelvic canal geometry among populations is consistent with a high degree of evolvability in the human pelvis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".