Is the Protruding Nasal Saddle of the Nanjing Homo erectus Caused by Adaptation to Cold Climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been asserted that highly protruding nasal saddle of Homo erectus skull from Nanjing was caused by adaptation to the cold environmental climate.Articles written by Coon(1962),Wolpoff(1968) and Franciscus and Trinkaus(1988) were cited to support this assertion.In fact,Coon's opinion on this matter has not been supported by later studies,the latter two articles have not advocated that highly protruding nasal saddle is resulted from adaptation to cold climate.Instead Wolpoff(1968) asserted that the nasal breadth is correlated with the latitude in Inuit and Australian aboriginals.Data of measurements cited by the present author from Woo and Morant(1934) and Howells(1973)showing the degree of protruding of the nasal part of the skull at its upper and lower parts,in various populations living in the regions of different latitude,indicate that it is confusing in the relation between the degree of protruding and the latitude.There is no clear evidence indicating any relation between the protruding of nasal saddle and the climate.The relation between the shape of nose and the climate is much more complicated than considered previously.The contrast between the degrees of nasal saddle protruding in Inuit skull and Bodo human fossil opposes the assertion that the protruding nasal saddle is caused by adapting to the cold climate.Nanjing Homo erectus lived in the area around 32°N in which is warmer than the region Inuit lives,but the nasal saddle of Nanjing specimen is much higher than that of Inuit.These facts contradict the opinion that the highly protruding nasal saddle was caused by the adaptation to cold climate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".