A Method for Estimating Sex Using the Clavicle, Humerus, Radius, and Ulna
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex estimation from skeletal remains can be an important part of preliminary identification. The best source of information for estimating sex is the pelvis but it is not always available for analysis. For these cases, a probabilistic sex estimation method is presented using combinations of standard and alternative measurements of the clavicle, humerus, radius, and ulna. Various equations are developed that are not population specific and that are applicable in various recovery scenarios. The equations were tested using four independent samples (n > 370), including a forensic sample. Allocation accuracies vary by test sample and equation and are consistently good (87.4-97.5%) except for a sample of very small males that show the extreme effects of poverty and mortality bias. For many of the cases where allocation was incorrect, the probabilistic approach indicated that no confidence should be placed in the incorrect allocation and the unknown should be classified as sex indeterminate.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.017 |
| 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 it