Forelimb segment length proportions in extant hominoids and <i>Australopithecus afarensis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forelimb proportions have been used to infer locomotor adaptation in Australopithecus afarensis. However, little is known about proportions among individual forelimb segments in extant or fossil hominoids. The partial A. afarensis skeleton A.L. 438-1 and the more complete skeleton A.L. 288-1 provide the opportunity to assess relative length of the arm, forearm, wrist, and palm. We compare scaling relationships between pairs of forelimb bones of extant hominoids and A. afarensis, and length of individual forelimb elements to a body size surrogate. Hylobatids, and to a lesser extent orangutans, have the longest forelimb bones relative to size, although the carpus varies little among taxa, perhaps due to functional constraints of the wrist. Pan species are unique in having long metacarpals relative to ulnar length, demonstrating that they probably differ from the common chimp-human ancestor, and also that developmental mechanisms can be altered to results in differential growth of individual forelimb segments. A. afarensis has no forelimb bones that are significantly longer than those of humans for its size. It falls within the range of variation seen in modern humans for all comparisons relative to size, but appears to differ from the typical human brachial index due to a slightly shorter humerus and/or slightly longer ulna. It has short metacarpals like humans only among hominoids. Thus, while Pan may have elongated its metacarpus relative to ulnar length, A. afarensis may have reduced the length of its metacarpals and possibly its humerus relative to body size from the primitive condition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".