Evaluating the relationship between thoracic form and individual rib cross‐sectional shape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the context of human evolution, differences in rib cross‐sectional shape have been explained as a means of preserving equivalent pulmonary function in differently shaped thoraces during respiratory excursions (Jellema et al., 1993.). Relatively flat ribs should then be associated with a narrower trunk (modern), whereas rounded ribs should accompany a thorax that is transversely broad ("archaic"). This study tests whether the more modest variation in thoracic shape within living humans related to climatic adaptation may also elicit these differences. To test the influence of thoracic form on individual rib cross‐sectional shape, external shape data was collected from the 4th and 8th ribs of males from within two ecogeographically distinct populations: Inuit (n=20) and Zulu (n=20). Overall thoracic shape at each level was characterized using measures modified from Franciscus and Churchill (2002), and external rib shaft molding was used to capture cross‐sectional shape. The 2‐D outline of each cross‐section was acquired using TPS software (Rohlf, 2007). As predicted, the Inuits, with their wider torso, are determined to have statistically significantly rounder ribs, accounted for by greater medio‐lateral dimensions, though not greater cross‐sectional area. Results are presented in the context of climatic adaptation, as well as previous considerations regarding rib shape and resistance to bending. Research funded with generous support from University of Iowa Student Government, UI Graduate Student Senate, Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research, the Stanley ‐UI Foundation Support Organization. Grant Funding Source University of Iowa Student Government, UI Graduate Student Senate, Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research, the Stanley –UI Foundation Support Organization
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".