Comparison of Craniofacial Measurements of Young Adult African-American and North American White Males and Females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgical correction of craniofacial disfigurements depends for its success on precise knowledge of the craniofacial norms of the patient's racial/ethnic groups. The norms of North American whites should be restricted to patients of Caucasian origin and not applied to members of other races. This study therefore sought to determine differences in anthropometric measurements of the craniofacial complex between African-American and North American white subjects of both sexes and of similar age (18-25 years old). The study group consisted of healthy young adult African-Americans, 50 males and 50 females. The analysis of craniofacial morphology was based on 51 anthropometric measurements: 9 cranial, 10 facial, 8 orbital, 14 nasal, 4 oral and 6 auricular. The results were compared with 51 norms previously established for North American whites in the same age group, generally based on 109 males and 200 females, fewer in comparisons of some nasal measurements (ac-ac, sbal-sbal, ac-sn, nostril axis). Highly significant differences between groups were found in every craniofacial region, especially in the orbital and nasal areas, and confirmed the need to establish separate norms for African-Americans to guide corrective surgery of the head and face.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".