Adult proportionality in small‐bodied foragers: A test of ecogeographic expectations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If predictable, ecogeographic patterning in body size and proportions of human populations can provide valuable information regarding human biology, adaptation to local environments, migration histories, and health, now and in the past. This paper evaluates the assumption that small-bodied Later Stone Age (LSA) foragers of Southern Africa show the adult proportions that would be expected of warm-adapted populations. Comparisons are also made with small-bodied foragers from the Andaman Islands (AI). Indices including brachial, crural, limb element length to skeletal trunk height, and femoral head and bi-iliac breadth to femoral length were calculated from samples of LSA (n = 124) and AI (n = 31) adult skeletons. Samples derived from the literature include those from high (Europe), middle (North Africa), and low (Sub-Saharan Africa) latitude regions. The LSA and AI samples match some but not all expected ecogeographic patterns for their particular regions of long term habitation. For most limb length to skeletal trunk height indices the LSA and AI are most similar to the other mid-latitude sample (North Africans). However, both groups are similar to low latitude groups in their narrow bi-iliac breadths, and the AI display relatively long radii. Proportions of LSA and AI samples also differ from those of African pygmies. In regions like southern-most Africa, that do not experience climatic extremes of temperature or humidity, or where small body size exists through drift or selection, body size, and proportions may also be influenced by nonclimatic variables, such as energetic efficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".