Finger length and distal finger extent patterns in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fingers in the adult human hand differ in length and in distal extent. The literature agrees that in the clear majority of males, the distal extent of the ring finger tends to be relatively greater (using the middle finger as standard) than the index finger. However, the results for females vary considerably, with some studies reporting that females show a similar pattern to that of males, while others suggest that the prevalence of a longer index finger is relatively or absolutely more common in females. We provide a review of the literature, and a set of data for both finger length and distal fingertip extent of the finger for a contemporary cohort of young adult females and males (n = 502). Finger length measures favor the ring finger of both sexes, with smaller between-finger differences for females than for males. However, while the distal fingertip extent favors the ring finger of both hands in males, in females the left hand shows no significant differences, and the right hand shows a small index finger advantage. Thus, the sexual dimorphism in finger measures is more strongly expressed in the distal extent of fingertips than in the length of fingers. The sex differences in distal fingertip extent derive from the index finger only, with a lesser distal extent of the index finger, relative to the middle finger, in males than in females.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".