MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964848237 · doi:10.1002/ajhb.10136

Center of body mass and the evolution of female body shape

2003· article· en· W1964848237 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bogusław Pawłowski, Marzena Grabarczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Human Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité LavalMichigan State University
KeywordsSexual dimorphismBody proportionsAnthropometrySexual selectionBiologyBody shapeCircumferenceSex characteristicsCallitrichidaeWaistZoologyAnatomyBody mass indexMedicinePrimateEcologyEndocrinologyGeometryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among primates, the genus Homo has a unique sexual dimorphism in general body shape. The stenotypic female "hourglass figure" has often been attributed to sexual selection. Sexual dimorphism both in shape and in position of the center of body mass (CoM) emerges during puberty and is related to hormonal influences. These are only the proximal and not the ultimate causes of this feature. This article explores the hypothesis that the evolutionary (i.e., ultimate) reason for female body shape and male preference for a lower waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is due to the acquisition of bipedal locomotion and different biomechanical constraints on each sex. The demands of pregnancy and subsequently carrying infants may have more tightly constrained CoM in females than in males. A lower-position of CoM relative to height (RCoM=(CoM/height)*100%) would contribute to better stability during pregnancy and infant carrying. Using body measurements from 119 female students, we show that RCoM correlates negatively with only maximal thigh circumference and positively with only WHR and shoulder width. The relationship between RCoM and traits that best characterize female body shape seems to confirm a hypothesis of biomechanical selection pressure that may have acted on Homo female morphology, thus contributing to sexual dimorphism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Human BiologySame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207