MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091574563 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12006

Postcranial Sex Estimation of Individuals Considered Hispanic

2012· article· en· W2091574563 on OpenAlexaff
Meredith L. Tise, M. Katherine Spradley, Bruce E. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsFowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic
FundersUniversity of West FloridaTexas State UniversityUniversity of Florida
KeywordsPostcraniaUnivariateDemographyForensic anthropologyStatisticsMultivariate statisticsPopulationMetric (unit)MathematicsPsychologyGeographyBiologyEngineeringSociologyOperations managementArchaeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When forensic anthropologists estimate the sex of Hispanic skeletal remains using nonpopulation specific metric methods, initial observations cause males to frequently misclassify as female. To help improve these methods, this research uses postcranial measurements from United States-Mexico border migrant fatalities at the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner in Tucson, Arizona, as well as Hispanic individuals from the Forensic Anthropology Data Bank. Using a total of 114 males and 28 females, sectioning points and discriminant functions provide classification rates as high as 89.43% for Hispanic individuals. A test sample assessed the reliability of these techniques resulting in accuracy up to 99.65%. The clavicle maximum length measurement provides the best univariate estimate of sex, while the radius provides the best multivariate estimated of sex. The results of this research highlight the need for population specific data in the creation of a biological profile, especially when working with individuals considered Hispanic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.021
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations59
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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