MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2228746105 · doi:10.15173/nexus.v23i2.894

Dmanisi hominin fossils and the problem of the multiple species in the early Homo genus

2015· article· en· W2228746105 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Santiago Wolnei Ferreira Guimarães, Carlos Lorenzo Merino

Bibliographic record

VenueNEXUS The Canadian Student Journal of Anthropology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Federal do Pará
KeywordsSensuHomo erectusGenusRange (aeronautics)Lineage (genetic)Evolutionary biologyBiologyPaleontologyZoologyPleistocene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The D4500 (Skull 5), dated 1.8 Mya., is the most complete fossil within the set of five skulls found in Dmanisi, Georgia, as well as any other fossils associated to contexts of occupation of the early Pleistocene. Its discovery has brought forward the debate of the plurality of species, not just at the beginning of the Homo genus, but for much of its evolution. The Skull 5 fossil presents a mixure of primitive and derivates characters associated to the Homo erectus and Homo habilis sensu lato. Based on the data referring to the five skulls researchers have considered the hypothesis of a single evolving lineage of early Homo as a mode to explain the great variation range of the Dmanisi fossils, similar to the range found in habilines. In other words, it is an explanation that reiterates the existence of only one unique species in the early of the Homo genus: the Homo erectus in a sensu lato. Our work consists of evaluating such supposition through the calculation of the coefficient of variation, which was estimated from the referred set and compared to those from already known species. Results achieved did not support the thinking that one unique species was able to bear all fossils of the early of Homo genus.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNEXUS The Canadian Student Journal of AnthropologySame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207