MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118098062 · doi:10.1002/ajpa.21127

Body size estimation of small‐bodied humans: Applicability of current methods

2009· article· en· W2118098062 on OpenAlex
Helen K. Kurki, J.K. Ginter, Jay T. Stock, Susan Pfeiffer

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoTrent UniversityUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilUniversity of Cape TownCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsSexual dimorphismFemurBody proportionsPopulationTibiaEstimationDemographyFemoral headSample size determinationForensic anthropologyOrthodonticsAnatomyBiologyStatisticsGeographyMedicineMathematicsGeometryArchaeologyZoologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body size (stature and mass) estimates are integral to understanding the lifeways of past populations.Body size estimation of an archaeological skeletal sample can be problematic when the body size or proportions of the population are distinctive. One such population is that of the Holocene Later Stone Age (LSA) of southern Africa, in which small stature (mean femoral length = 407 mm, n = 52) and narrow pelves (mean bi-iliac breadth = 210 mm, n = 50) produce a distinctive adult body size/shape, making it difficult to identify appropriate body size estimation methods. Material culture, morphology, and culture history link the Later Stone Age people with the descendant population collectively known as the Khoe-San. Stature estimates based on skeletal "anatomical" linear measures (the Fully method) and on long bone length are compared, along with body mass estimates derived from "morphometric" (bi-iliac breath/stature) and "biomechanical" (femoral head diameter) methods, in a LSA adult skeletal sample (n = 52) from the from coastal and near-coastal regions of South Africa. Indices of sexual dimorphism (ISD) for each method are compared with data from living populations. Fully anatomical stature is most congruent with Olivier's femur + tibia method, although both produce low ISD. McHenry's femoral head body mass formula produces estimates most consistent with the bi-iliac breadth/stature method for the females, although the males display higher degrees of disagreement among methods. These results highlight the need for formulae derived from reference samples from a wider range of body sizes to improve the reliability of existing methods.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.057
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.343 · 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