An Evaluation of Homo habilis sensu lato Variability Through a Comparative Analysis of the Coefficient of Variation of Three Hominid Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fragmentary nature of the fossil record leaves palaeontologists with the difficult task of sorting through the morphological variation found in fossil hominins in order to assign recovered specimens to the best suited species classification. Controversy arises in assessing the acceptable degree and pattern of variation allowed for within a single species. This lack of agreement concerning how much variability can be subsumed within a single species is at the core of the debate surrounding the identity of the taxon Homo habilis. To assess the number of taxa present within the H. habilis hypodigm, the coefficient of variation (CV) of cranial capacity was calculated for a sample of H. habilis specimens, six modern H. sapiens populations, and two Pan troglodytes skeletal collections. The results showed that H. habilis sensu lato has a CV value much greater than that calculated for human or chimpanzee populations, indicating that a single species solution for interpreting the H. habilis hypodigm maybe unsupported. Rather, it suggests that the H. habilis hypodigm represents at least two distinct species of early Homo.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".