MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026966095 · doi:10.1520/jfs2003385

Determining the Sex of Human Remains Through Cranial Morphology

2005· article· en· W2026966095 on OpenAlexaffabout
T. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsAmorfix (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkullChinAnatomyForeheadBrachycephalyOrthodonticsBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sex determination is the keystone of a biological profile, yet few qualitative methods of cranial sex determination have been tested. This analysis examines the accuracy and precision of 17 morphological features of the skull commonly used to determine the sex of unknown skeletal remains. The sample consists of 46 identified skulls from the 19th century St. Thomas' Anglican Church Cemetery in Belleville, Canada. Nasal aperature, zygomatic extension, malar size/rugosity, and supraorbital ridge proved the most useful; of secondary value are chin form and nuchal crest; mastoid size is of tertiary consideration; nasal size and mandibular symphysis/ramus size rank fourth; forehead shape ranks fifth; and palate size/shape are sixth. Skull size/architecture provides an internal standard to assess the relative sizes of other traits. This research is a necessary step in establishing the credibility of morphological sex determination with respect to the Daubert and Mohan criteria for admissibility in a court of law.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations268
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207