The Lateral Angle Revisited: A Validation Study of the Reliability of the Lateral Angle Method for Sex Determination Using Computed Tomography (<scp>CT</scp>)<sup>,</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the results of a validation study of a previously published method of sex determination from the temporal bone. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the lateral angle method for the internal acoustic canal for accurately determining the sex of human skeletal remains using measurements taken from computed tomography (CT) scans. Previous reports have observed that the lateral angle size in females is significantly larger than in males. The method was applied to an independent series of 77 postmortem CT scans (42 males, 35 females) to validate its accuracy and reliability. The mean lateral angle of the internal acoustic canal was found to be larger in females (46.5°) than in males (43.4°). However, the difference was not statistically significant and the sex differences reported in previous studies were not substantiated. In light of the observed results, the lateral angle method appears to be of minimal practical use in forensic anthropology and archeology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".