MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171252584 · doi:10.1002/ajpa.20636

Protection of obstetric dimensions in a small‐bodied human sample

2007· article· en· W2171252584 on OpenAlex

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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual dimorphismAllometryPopulationAnatomyMultivariate statisticsUnivariateMultivariate analysisPelvisDemographyBiologyMedicineZoologyMathematicsStatisticsEcologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In human females, the bony pelvis must find a balance between being small (narrow) for efficient bipedal locomotion, and being large to accommodate a relatively large newborn. It has been shown that within a given population, taller/larger-bodied women have larger pelvic canals. This study investigates whether in a population where small body size is the norm, pelvic geometry (size and shape), on average, shows accommodation to protect the obstetric canal. Osteometric data were collected from the pelves, femora, and clavicles (body size indicators) of adult skeletons representing a range of adult body size. Samples include Holocene Later Stone Age (LSA) foragers from southern Africa (n = 28 females, 31 males), Portuguese from the Coimbra-identified skeletal collection (CISC) (n = 40 females, 40 males) and European-Americans from the Hamann-Todd osteological collection (H-T) (n = 40 females, 40 males). Patterns of sexual dimorphism are similar in the samples. Univariate and multivariate analyses of raw and Mosimann shape-variables indicate that compared to the CISC and H-T females, the LSA females have relatively large midplane and outlet canal planes (particularly posterior and A-P lengths). The LSA males also follow this pattern, although with absolutely smaller pelves in multivariate space. The CISC females, who have equally small stature, but larger body mass, do not show the same type of pelvic canal size and shape accommodation. The results suggest that adaptive allometric modeling in at least some small-bodied populations protects the obstetric canal. These findings support the use of population-specific attributes in the clinical evaluation of obstetric risk.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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 studies0.0000.041
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.265 · 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